GST: Madras High Court Quashes Assessment for FY 2017‑18; Allows Fresh Adjudication

GST: Madras High Court Quashes Assessment for FY 2017‑18; Allows Fresh Adjudication
The Tvl. Annamalaiar Mills Private Limited (petitioner) has filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified call for records concerning challenged order passed by The Deputy State Tax Officer (respondent) dated 14/12/2023 and to quash the same as it is illegal, without jurisdiction and in gross violation of the Principles of Natural Justice and to instruct the respondent to re-apply the assessment afresh after giving an opportunity for a Personal Hearing as per the provisions of the GST Act.
Before the Madras High Court, the petitioner is against the challenged order wherein the demand has been confirmed for the tax period of 2017-18. The challenged order has been introduced the notice in DRC 01A, dated 27/09/2023 and 28/09/2023 and three personal hearing notices dated 02/11/2023, 20/11/2023 and 29/11/2023. But the petitioner has not responded to the same and therefore, the demand has been confirmed against the petitioner.
The Madras High Court has noticed that in similar cases the court has come to rescue the persons like petitioners by quashing the challenged order on terms and say that there are no other cases to take a different view of the matter.
Considering the same, this Writ Petition is disposed by quashing the challenged order on the condition of the petitioner depositing 25% of the disputed tax in cash from the petitioner’s Electronic Cash Register within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
The Court orders the petitioner to file an answer to the notice in DRC 01 dated 28/09/2023 by treating the challenged order as an attachment to the Show Cause Notice. If the petitioner fails to satisfy the abovementioned details, then the respondent will be given liberty to pass fresh orders on facts and according to the law (Writ Petition) and dismiss as quickly as possible within a specific three months of time, after hearing the petitioner.