Facts
The petitioner, proprietor of Tvl. Shilpa Textiles, challenged an order dated 30 September 2025 under Section 73 of the TNGST Act, 2017, and the related summary in Form GST DRC-07.
Source reference: p. 2–3She had filed a reply to the show-cause notice but contended that it was not properly considered and that she was not given a personal hearing.
Source reference: p. 2–3The State’s counsel acknowledged that no personal hearing had been provided.
Source reference: p. 2–3The petitioner also stated that the disputed tax had already been recovered and sought an opportunity to present her case afresh.
Source reference: p. 2–3The Court observed that the order gave no reasons for rejecting the reply.
Source reference: p. 4Issues
1. Whether the assessment order could stand when the petitioner was not given a personal hearing before it was passed.
Source reference: p. 3–42. Whether the assessment order and any consequential bank-account attachment should be set aside pending fresh consideration.
Source reference: p. 4–5Law Applied
Section 75(4) of the GST Act requires an opportunity of personal hearing before an adverse order is passed against an assessee.
Source reference: p. 4An order passed without that opportunity is contrary to the statutory requirement and violates the principles of natural justice.
Source reference: p. 4Reasoning
The petitioner had submitted a detailed reply, but the impugned order did not state reasons for rejecting it.
Source reference: p. 3–5The respondent also admitted that no personal hearing had been afforded.
Source reference: p. 3–5The Court therefore found the order inconsistent with Section 75(4) and the principles of natural justice.
Source reference: p. 3–5In light of those defects, and the petitioner’s submission that the disputed tax had already been recovered, the Court set aside the order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.
Source reference: p. 3–5Holding
The Court set aside the order dated 30 September 2025 and remanded the matter to the first respondent.
The petitioner was directed to file her reply or objections, with supporting documents, within three weeks of receiving the Court’s order.
Source reference: p. 5The respondent must then issue 14 days’ clear notice fixing a personal hearing and decide the matter on its merits and in accordance with law.
Source reference: p. 5The Court also directed the bank respondents to immediately defreeze the petitioner’s account upon production of the order and notify the first respondent.
Source reference: p. 5The writ petition was disposed of without costs; the connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.
Source reference: p. 5Acts & Sections Cited
2 provisions across 1 statute referred to in this judgment. Linked provisions open on LawLens.
Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 20172
Original Court PDF
Geeta ChawlavsThe Assistant Commissioner ST FAC
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
