Allowed

Tvl. Ameen Lineman, v. The Assistant Commissioner (St) (Fac)

Madras HC23 Apr 2025WP(MD)/10297/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition challenged an ex-parte GST assessment order for 2019-20 issued without affording a personal hearing, due to the petitioner's reliance on a parttime accountant who failed to communicate the proceedings. The court set aside the order as violating natural justice and remitted the matter for fresh assessment after hearing.

What the court decided

AI extract

Tvl. Ameen Lineman, Vs The Assistant Commissioner (St)… — GST and Indirect Tax | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

W.P.(MD)No.10297 of 2025

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 23.04.2025

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIVEK KUMAR SINGH

¶6

W.P.(MD)No.10297 of 2025 and W.M.P.(MD). No. 7684 of 2025

¶7

Tvl. Rabi Agency, Rep. By its proprietor M. Mydeen, No.167/N7, Soma Puram Mettu Street, Tenkasi – 627811.

¶8

... Petitioner

¶9

Vs.

¶10

The Assistant Commissioner (ST)(FAC), Tenkasi Assessment Circle, Tenkasi District. ... Respondent

¶11

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the Respondent vide his order in GSTIN. 33BCGPN5593L1Z3/2019-2020 dated 18-11-2023 and quash the same as it is illegal, without jurisdiction and in gross violation of Principles of Natural Justice and further direct the respondent to re-do the assessment afresh after providing an opportunity of Personal Hearing as per the provisions of the GST Act.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr. A. Satheesh Murugan

¶13

For Respondent : Mr. J.K. Jayaselan Government Advocate

¶14

1/7

¶15

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶16

W.P.(MD)No.10297 of 2025

¶17

ORDER

¶18

This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order

¶19

passed by the respondent vide his order in GSTIN. 33BCGPN5593L1Z3/2019-2020 and also to direct the respondent to redo the assessment afresh after providing an opportunity of Personal Hearing as per the provisions of the GST Act.

¶20

2. The petitioner is a registered tax payer and due to lack of GST knowledge and portal access, the petitioner had fully relied on a parttime accountant, who also failed to inform the petitioner about the assessment proceedings. Therefore, the petitioner was unable to attend the personal hearing, leading to the issuance of an ex-parte assessment order dated 18.11.2023.

¶21

3 . The petitioner's main grievance is that the impugned order has been passed without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, which is in violation of principles of natural justice and hence, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

¶22

2/7

¶23

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶24

W.P.(MD)No.10297 of 2025

¶25

4 . On perusal of the materials available on record, it is seen that the order impugned in this writ petition has been passed without affording opportunity of hearing, which is in violation of principles of natural justice. Hence, the impugned order dated 18.11.2023 passed by the respondent is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the file of the respondent for a fresh consideration. The respondent shall consider the case of the petitioner on its own merits, re-do the assessment and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, after affording a fair opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶26

5. With the above directions, this writ petition is allowed. There

¶27

shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶28

23.04.2025 Index : Yes / No (3/3) NCC : Yes / No sm

¶29

3/7

¶30

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶31

W.P.(MD)No.10297 of 2025 VIVEK KUMAR SINGH, J.

¶32

¶33

¶34

The Assistant Commissioner (ST)(FAC), Tenkasi Assessment Circle, Tenkasi District.

¶35

W.P.(MD)No.10297 of 2025 (3/3)

¶36

23.04.2025

¶37

4/7

¶38

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶39

W.P.(MD)No.10297 of 2025 and W.M.P.(MD)No.7684 of 2025

¶40

W.P.(MD)No.10297 of 2025

¶41

VIVEK KUMAR SINGH, J.

¶42

This Writ Petition is listed today under the caption ''for being mentioned'' at the instance of the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶43

2 . The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the order dated 23.04.2025, passed in W.P.(MD)No.10297 of 2025, the petitioner's name has been inadvertently mentioned as "Tvl.Rabi Agency, Rep. By its Proprietor M.Mydeen, No.167/N7, Soma Puram Mettu Street, Tenkasi – 627811." instead of "Tvl. Ameen Lineman, Rep. by its Proprietor M.Noril Ameen, No.41,137, Puthumanai 2^nd Street, Tenkasi - 627811". Therefore, the learned counsel prays for necessary correction in the said order.

¶44

3 . In view of the above, the Registry is directed to carry out the correction by substituting the name "Tvl. Ameen Lineman, Rep. by its Proprietor M.Noril Ameen, No.41,137, Puthumanai 2^nd Street, Tenkasi - 627811" in place of "Tvl. Rabi Agency, Rep. By its Proprietor

¶45

5/7

¶46

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶47

W.P.(MD)No.10297 of 2025

¶48

M.Mydeen, No.167/N7, Soma Puram Mettu Street, Tenkasi – 627811" in the order dated 23.04.2025 and issue a fresh copy of the corrected order forthwith.

06.06.2025

smn2

6/7

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶53

W.P.(MD)No.10297 of 2025

¶54

VIVEK KUMAR SINGH, J.

¶55

smn2

¶56

W.P.(MD)No.10297 of 2025 & W.M.P.(MD)No.7684 of 2025

¶57

06.06.2025

¶58

7/7

¶59

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Tvl. Ameen Lineman, v. The Assistant Commissioner (St) (Fac)

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Tvl. Ameen Lineman, v. The Assistant Commissioner (St) (Fac)

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/s.Jehorah Fire Works Factory Vs The District Revenue Officer

Duraipandi Vs The Joint Director

K.Saraswathi Vs The Secretary

A.Rajkumar Vs The Regional Passport Officer

R.M. Valliyammal Vs The Project Manager

Tvl a Sikkander Badhusha Vs State Tax Officer