2023 (11) TMI 205 - HC - GST

Ex-parte order set aside for failing to consider petitioner's reply and passing non-speaking order

M/s. The Chennai Silks Versus The Assistant Commissioner (ST) (FAC), Tirupur South Assessment Circle, Tirupur

The Madras HC set aside an ex-parte order passed by the Assessing Officer for violating principles of natural justice. The petitioner had filed a reply to ... Violation of principles of natural justice - ex-parte order - reply filed by the petitioner not taken into consideration and the respondent - HELD THAT:- In the present case, the respondent/Assessing Officer, admittedly, has failed to consider the reply/objections made by the petitioner pursuant to the show cause notice and passed a non-speaking order. The learned counsel also brought to the notice of this Court certain paragraphs mentioned in the show cause notice were re-produced in the impugned order. Therefore, failure on the part of the respondent/Assessing Officer to address the reply/objections of the petitioner/assessee by a speaking order, would vitiate the impugned proceedings. On this score, since the reply/objections made by the petitioner pursuant to the show cause notice remained undecided, this Court feels that the petitioner is entitled to have a considered opinion of the Assessing Officer after taking into consideration the reply filed by the petitioner. Thus, this Court is inclined to set-aside the impugned order and remit the matter back for re-consideration. Petition allowed by way of remand. Issues involved: Challenging impugned order by respondent, non-speaking order passed without considering petitioner's replies, failure to address replies/objections, entitlement to considered opinion of Assessing Officer.Judgment Summary:Issue 1: Challenging Impugned Order The petitioner firm, engaged in trading garments, challenged an order by the respondent/Department regarding tax liability under the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Act, 2017. The respondent issued notices and held a personal hearing, but the impugned order was passed without considering the petitioner's replies, leading to the filing of a Writ Petition.Issue 2: Failure to Address Replies/Objections The learned Government Advocate admitted that the petitioner's reply was not considered in the impugned order. The Court noted that the respondent failed to address the petitioner's stand in their reply, resulting in a non-speaking order. The Appellate Authority was suggested as a remedy, but limitations were highlighted regarding remanding the matter and the importance of two well-considered opinions.Issue 3: Entitlement to Considered Opinion The Court emphasized that the Assessing Officer must follow specific procedures, including providing time for replies, personal hearings, and detailed assessment proceedings. Failure to pass a speaking order after considering objections could lead to appeals and revenue loss. The Court set aside the impugned order, directing the Assessing Officer to reconsider the matter, ensuring the petitioner's reply is taken into account for a detailed order.In conclusion, the Writ Petition was allowed, the impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remitted back to the respondent for reconsideration, emphasizing adherence to principles of natural justice.