High Court · 2025

W.P.Nos.3269 & 5220 of 2025IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDated : 21.02.2025CORAMTHE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMYW.P.Nos.3269 & 5220 of 2025and W.M.P.Nos.3651, 3652, 5801 & 5804 of 2025W.P.No.3269 of 2025:Tvl Mark MetroRepresented by its Authorized signatory K. Kumaran, No. 32, Ganga Nagar, 1st Cross Street, Kodambakkam, Chennai - 600 024 ... Petitioner Vs.1.State Tax Officer Group XII (IC) /Intelligence -I Commercial Taxes Department, Chennai- 06.2.State Tax Officer, Group I/ Intelligence I, Commercial Taxes Department, No.1, Greams Road, Chennai-06.3.Assistant Commissioner (ST) Kodambakkam Assessment Circle, No.10, Palaniyappa Building, 2nd Floor, Greams Road, Chennai-600 006.1/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.3269 & 5220 of 20254.Commissioner of State Taxes, Chepauk, Chennai 600 005... RespondentPrayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the impugned Order in GSTIN 33ABBFM9113G1ZK/ 2017-18 dated 15.07.2024 passed by the 2nd Respondent quash the same and direct the 2nd Respondent to pass de-novo assessment order afresh in accordance with law after affording the Petitioner an opportunity of personal hearing.W.P.No.5220 of 2025:Tvl Mark MetroRep by its Authorized Signatory, B.Sinduja,No. 32, Ganga Nagar, 1st Cross Street, Kodambakkam, Chennai – 600 024.... Petitioner Vs.1.State Tax Officer Group XII (IC) /Intelligence -I Commercial Taxes Department, PAPJM Building, Greams Road, Chennai- 06.2/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.3269 & 5220 of 20252.State Tax Officer, Group I/ Intelligence I, Commercial Taxes Department, PAPJM Building, 1st Floor, No.1, Greams Road, Chennai-06.3.Assistant Commissioner (ST) Kodambakkam Assessment Circle, PAPJM Building Annexe, Greams Road, Chennai-06.... RespondentPrayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to calling for the records relating to the impugned Order in GSTIN/33ABBFM9113 G1ZK/2017-18 dated 29.01.2025 passed by the 2nd Respondent quash the same and direct the 2nd Respondent to pass de-novo rectification order afresh in accordance with law after affording the Petitioner an opportunity of personal hearing.For Petitionerin both petitions : Mr.Vijay Narayan, Senior Counsel, for Ms.Abinaya RajFor Respondentin both petitions : Mr.C.Harsha Raj, Special Government Pleader3/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.3269 & 5220 of 2025COMMON ORDERThe writ petition in W.P.No.3269 of 2025 has been filed challenging the impugned assessment order dated 15.07.2024 and the writ petition in W.P.No.5220 of 2025 has been filed challenging the impugned rejection order dated 29.01.2025.2. The learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that in the present case, the notice in Form GST DRC-01 was issued by the respondents on 13.03.2024, for which, the reply, along with all the relevant documents, were filed by the petitioner on 28.03.2024. However, the impugned order was passed by the respondent as if no documents were furnished. Hence, it is clear that the reply filed by the petitioner was not at all considered by the respondent. Under these circumstances, the rectification application has been filed by the petitioner, however, the same was rejected vide the impugned rejection order dated 29.01.2025 on the ground that the rectification application will be considered only when there is any error apparent on the original order. Hence, these writ petitions have been filed.4/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.3269 & 5220 of 20253. In reply, the learned Special Government Pleader, appearing for the respondents would fairly submit that in this case, the reply was filed by the petitioner along with all the relevant documents, however, the same was not at all considered by the respondent while passing the impugned assessment order. 4. Further, he would submit that the rectification application will only be considered if there is any error apparent on the original order. In such case, he requests this Court to set aside both the impugned assessment order and the impugned rejection order. That apart, since only the Assessing Officer can consider the reply filed by the petitioner, he requests this Court to remand this matter back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.5. Heard the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents and also perused the entire materials available on record.5/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.3269 & 5220 of 20256. In this case, it is clear that the reply was filed by the petitioner, along with all the relevant documents, however, the said reply was not considered by the Assessing Officer while passing the impugned assessment order. Hence, a rectification application was filed by the petitioner and the same was also dismissed vide the impugned rejection order.7. In this case, the impugned assessment order was passed without considering the reply filed by the petitioner, which is a clear violation of principles of natural justice and hence, the said assessment order is liable to be set aside. However, as contended by the learned Special Government Pleader, the said aspect cannot be considered in a rectification application since, a rectification application will be entertained only if there is any error apparent on the original order. When such being the case, this Court feels that it would be appropriate to set aside both the original assessment order as well as the rectification order passed by the respondents. Since, it appears that only the 6/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.3269 & 5220 of 2025Assessing Officer can consider the reply filed by the petitioner, this Court is inclined to remand this matter back to the Assessing Officer. Accordingly, this Court passes the following order:i) The impugned assessment order dated 15.07.2024 and the impugned rejection order dated 29.01.2025 are hereby set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Assessing Officer for reconsideration.(ii) The Assessing Officer is directed to consider the reply filed by the petitioner, along with all the relevant documents, and issue a 14 days clear notice, by fixing the date of personal hearing, to the petitioner and thereafter, pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law, after hearing the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible. 8. With the above directions, these writ petitions are disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are also closed.21.02.2025Speaking/Non-speaking orderIndex : Yes / NoNeutral Citation : Yes / Nonsa7/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.3269 & 5220 of 2025To1.State Tax Officer Group XII (IC) /Intelligence -I Commercial Taxes Department, Chennai- 06.2.State Tax Officer, Group I/ Intelligence I, Commercial Taxes Department, No.1, Greams Road, Chennai-06.3.Assistant Commissioner (ST) Kodambakkam Assessment Circle, No.10, Palaniyappa Building, 2nd Floor, Greams Road, Chennai-600 006.4.Commissioner of State Taxes, Chepauk, Chennai 600 0058/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.3269 & 5220 of 2025KRISHNAN RAMASAMY.J.,nsaW.P.Nos.3269 & 5220 of 2025& W.M.P.Nos.3651, 3652, 5801 & 5804 of 202521.02.20259/9