2024 (2) TMI 998 - HC - GST

Tax Assessment Order Quashed: 10% Tax Remittance Required, Fresh Reasoned Order Mandated Under Section 74 of TNGST Act

M/s. Balaji Electrical & Hardwares, Represented by its Proprietor Mr. G. Omprakash Versus The State Tax Officer (ST), Deputy Commissioner (ST), The Branch Manager

HC found assessment order under Section 74 of TNGST Act lacking substantive grounds. Order was quashed with directive for petitioner to remit 10% of ... Validity of assessment order and attachment notice - no allegations of fraud, wilful-misstatement or suppression of facts - requirements of Section 74 of TNGST Act not satisfied - unreasoned order - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- The impugned assessment order refers to the intimation dated 08.05.2023 and the show cause notice dated 12.06.2023. It also records that the petitioner did not comply with the tax demand or file any objections. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that an opportunity was not provided to the petitioner to respond to the tax demand. On examining the impugned assessment order and the show cause notice which preceded it, however, it is noticeable that the impugned order is unreasoned. It is also noticeable that the ingredients of Section 74 are not satisfied. For these reasons, the orders impugned herein warrant interference, albeit by putting the petitioner on terms. The assessment order and the consequential attachment notice are quashed subject to the condition that the petitioner remits 10% of the disputed tax demand within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order - Petition disposed off. Issues involved:The assessment order under Section 74 of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 lacking allegations of fraud, wilful-misstatement or suppression of facts, and being unreasoned. The petitioner seeking rectification based on error apparent on the face of the record and absence of tax dues.Summary:The petitioner challenged an assessment order and an attachment notice, claiming unawareness of prior communications due to having filed GST returns. The assessment order was contested on grounds of lacking Section 74 requirements and being unreasoned, supported by evidence from the GST portal showing no shortfall. The respondent argued that the petitioner had been given opportunities for intimation, show cause notice, and personal hearing, citing adherence to principles of natural justice. The court found the assessment order unreasoned and not meeting Section 74 criteria, quashing it with the condition of remitting 10% of the disputed tax demand within two weeks for a fresh assessment order to be issued within two months. The writ petition was disposed of with no costs.