S RS Constructions v State Revenue Officer (Data Analysis) (Madras High Court)

Summary: In the case of M/s SRS Constructions c. The State Tax Officer (data analysis)the Madras High Court has examined procedural irregularities in assessment orders issued under the Central Goods and Services Act, 2017 (CGST Act). The petitioner has challenged the assessment orders dated February 23, 2024 for assessment years 2020-21 and 2021-22, which were executed by the same officer, L. Kumaresan, acting in the dual role of officer of the state taxes (data analysis) and the commercial tax manager. The petitioner argued that the orders were biased due to this dual capacity, raising concerns about fairness and impartiality. The Court found that government counsel was unable to provide a satisfactory explanation for the officer’s double signing of the orders, indicating a lack of procedural integrity. This led the Court to set aside the challenged orders and remit the case for reconsideration, thereby ensuring that the petitioner would be heard before further decisions were made. The judgment highlights the importance of maintaining clear and impartial administrative processes, emphasizing that orders signed by an officer holding conflicting functions are not legally valid. This case highlights the need for transparency and accountability in tax assessments and administrative actions.

Introduction: The Hon’ble High Court of Madras in the case of M/s SRS Construction c. The State Revenue Officer (Data Analysis) (Written Application (MD) Nos. 16214 and 16276 of 2024 dated July 19, 2024) cancel the orders which were signed by the same official in double capacity, considering that these orders are likely to be annulled.

Facts:

M/s SRS Construction (“the petitioner”) had challenged the assessment orders dated February 23, 2024 (“the contested order”) passed under section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Act, 2017 (“the CGST Act”) for assessment years 2020-21 and 2021-22 (“the disputed period”) The impugned orders were passed by the same person in the capacity of State Revenue Officer (Data Analysis) (Intelligence Wing), Virudhunagar and Commercial Tax Officer.

Detained:

The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case (Written Petition (MD) Nos. 16214 and 16276 of 2024 in view of the fact that the department is not in a position to clarify why the same officer signed the respective impugned order under two different titles, the impugned orders were thereby set aside and the matter was remanded for reconsideration.

FULL TEXT OF THE MADRAS HIGH COURT JUDGMENT/ORDER

By this joint order, these two writ petitions are disposed of.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned government counsel for the respondents.

3. The petitioner is before this Court against the respective assessment orders dated 23.02.2024, passed by the first respondent for the assessment years 2020-21 and 2021-22. The challenge in the impugned order is that the same person, namely L. Kumaresan, passed the impugned orders for the respective assessment years.

4. It is submitted that the same officer issued the summary of orders in GST DRC 07 for the respective assessment years and signed as Commercial Tax Officer and also issued notices under section 74 for 3/7 of the respective tax years. as responsible for commercial taxes. It is submitted that the impugned orders dated 23.02.2024 for the respective assessment years were issued by the same person in the capacity of State Revenue Officer (Data Analysis) (Intelligence Wing), Virudhunagar.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner in these writ petitions submit that the impugned orders have been passed in a biased manner inasmuch as the same officer has assumed dual role as both Commercial Tax Officer and Commercial Tax Officer. the State (data analysis) (intelligence service). Wing), Virudhunagar.

6. It is further argued that there is bias in patent matters generally. This apart, it is submitted that the said officer had already been transferred as early as 02.08.2023, but he passed the impugned orders in dual capacity as mentioned above.

7. The learned Government Counsel for the respondents is unable to explain why the same officer signed in two different capacities, one as Commercial Tax Officer, Tirunelveli and the other as State Revenue Officer (Data Analysis) (Intelligence Wing). , Virudhunagar for the respective years. At first glancethere is a difference because the same officer wears two heads.

8. In the absence of proper explanation, this Court is inclined to set aside the impugned orders and remit the matters to the second respondent to pass further orders on merits and in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible, preferably within two months. It goes without saying that the petitioner will be heard before passing the orders. The applicant will cooperate with the second respondent. In case the petitioner fails to cooperate with the second respondent, the respondents are at liberty to proceed against the petitioner based on the materials available on record.

These written petitions are disposed of according to the instructions above. No fees. Therefore, the related miscellaneous petitions are closed.

*****

(The author can be contacted at (email protected))