TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (8) TMI 1450
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... dated 29.01.2025 relating to the FY 2021-2022 and to quash the same and to direct the respondent No.3 to lift the Bank attachment of the Petitioner held with Respondent No.4 and direct the 1st Respondent to assess the matter afresh. 2. Mr.R.Sandeep Bagmar learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the first respondent has issued a notice in DRC-01A dated 28.10.2022, pursuant to which, the second respondent issued two show cause notices in DRC-01A dated 26.08.2023 and another dated 13.09.2023, in respect of the same tax period, subsequently, the proceedings under DRC-01 dated 13.09.2023 were dropped by order dated 13.09.2023; that in respect of the show cause notice dated 26.08.2023, the petitioner filed a reply along....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sh consideration and prays for appropriate orders in that regard. 4. Mrs.K.Vasanthamala, learned Government Advocate (T) for the respondents 1 to 3 would submit that a show cause notice dated 26.08.2023 was issued by the first respondent fixing the personal hearing date on 14.09.2023, though the personal hearing was cancelled by virtue of notice dated 13.09.2023, however, pursuant to the detailed reply filed by the petitioner on 10.10.2023, another notice dated 25.10.2024 was issued to the petitioner, thereby, fixing the personal hearing on 04.11.2024, and the petitioner also participated in the proceedings and addressed the issue on duplication of proceedings, pursuant to which, proceedings were dropped therefore, the question of non-pr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ence, the petitioner, who was not able to make his submission in detail, uploaded the reply and other supporting documents on 13.09.2023 and 10.10.2023 and sought for personal hearing opportunity. Thereafter, since there was no communication from the respondent-Department, the petitioner was under the bona fide belief that proceedings contemplated under show cause notice dated 26.08.2023 might have been dropped. Whereas, the first respondent proceeded to confirm the proceeding contained in the show cause notice dated 26.03.2023 on the ground that the petitioner failed to respond to any of the notices issued by the respondent-Department dated 17.07.2024, 16.08.2024 and 25.10.2024 and passed the impugned order on 29.01.2025. 7. Thus, it is....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tiated under 73 of the TNGST Act, 2017, even if the statute prescribes no time-limit, within which, an order should be passed, overall reading of the provisions of said Section contemplates that issuance of show cause notice and order should be passed by the respondent not exceeding three months, however, in the present case, the respondent took nearly 1 ½ years to pass the assessment order. Therefore, this Court finds substance in the argument put forth by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the impugned order is liable to be set aside on this score as well. Therefore, this Court is inclined to set aside the assessment order passed by the first respondent dated 29.01.2025. Accordingly, this Court pass the following orders/dir....