WP/16667/2026 of RAJESH SILK EMPORIUM Vs THE DEPUTY ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER on 22 July 2026

1. MOHD MUKHAIRUDDIN Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX The Court made the following:

The Court made the following order: (per The Hon’ble Sri Justice T.C.D.Sekhar)

The petitioner is a registered dealer under GST Act, having engaged in the business of sale of silk sarees. It is the case of the petitioner that for the period 2024-25, the 1st respondent conducted scrutiny of returns of the petitioner and pursuant thereto, issued notice in Form ASMT-10, dated 24.12.2024, calling upon the petitioner to submit explanation as there are discrepancies in the return filed in relation to period April, 2024 – November, 2024.

2. Thereafter, the 1st respondent issued show cause notice in Form DRC-01 dated 21.03.2025, under Section 73 of the GST Act, 2017. The petitioner could not file its objections inasmuch as the deponent met with an accident, nor he appeared for personal hearing. Pursuant thereto, as there was no response from the petitioner, the 1st respondent proceeded with the assessment and accordingly passed adjudication order dated 17.05.2025. In order to recover the dues under the assessment order, the 1st respondent issued notice under Section 79(1)(c) of the Act, to the 4th respondent bank. Accordingly, the 4th respondent transferred an amount of Rs.1,70,568/-, in favour of the 1st respondent.

3. It is the specific case of the petitioner that the petitioner could not appear before the 1st respondent as the deponent met with accident and the same was informed to the 1st respondent through his relatives. This Court, by order dated 24.06.2026, directed the learned Government Pleader to get instructions in the matter, as to whether the petitioner had responded to the show cause notice.

4. The Assistant Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes, Sri S.A.V.Sai Kumar, on instructions, submits that the relatives of the petitioner telephonically informed the 1st respondent that the deponent met with accident. Despite the same, for the reasons best known to the 1st respondent, he proceeded with the matter and passed assessment order dated 17.05.2025. Further, it is also not in dispute that entire liability of the petitioner was recovered from the banker of the petitioner.

5. Having considered the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, and taking into consideration of the fact that the deponent met with accident and in view of the same, he could not pursue the matter before the 1st respondent, which the Assistant Government Pleader on instructions fairly confirmed that the 1st respondent was informed that the petitioner met with accident, this Court is of the opinion that proper officer ought not to have proceeded with the assessment.

6. In the circumstances, this Court deems it appropriate to set aside the impugned assessment order dated 17.05.2025, remand the matter to the 1st respondent, so as to provide opportunity to the petitioner inasmuch as, he could not participate in the assessment proceedings. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the writ petition is allowed.

7. Further, the 1st respondent is directed to issue fresh notice and after receipt of objections from the petitioner and after affording opportunity of being heard, and pass appropriate orders in the matter. It is needless to mention that the amount recovered from the petitioner would be subject to the result of assessment order that may be passed by the 1st respondent.

There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed.

__________________________ JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA

_____________________ JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR

Dt.23.07.2026 DSB

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D. SEKHAR

WP.No.16667/2026 Dated 23.07.2026

U DSB