D. Justin Kumar vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of CGST And C Excise

Facts

The petitioner, D. Justin Kumar, filed a writ petition challenging an assessment order dated 24.06.2024, issued by the State Tax Officer, Kuzhithurai Assessment Circle, for the Assessment Year 2022-2023. The petitioner contended that due to ill-health and reliance on a part-time accountant who failed to ensure statutory compliance, he was unable to participate in the adjudication proceedings, leading to an ex parte order. The respondent initially had an incorrect authority as the respondent, which was subsequently corrected by the Court through suo motu substitution.

Held

The Court noted the submission by the learned Government Advocate that the petitioner has an available appeal remedy before the appellate Deputy Commissioner (GST), Tirunelveli, under Section 107 of the GST Act, 2017. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of with liberty granted to the petitioner to approach the appellate authority. The petitioner was permitted to raise all grounds raised in the writ petition before the appellate authority. The Court directed that if an appeal is filed within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order, it shall be entertained by the appellate authority without reference to the period of limitation. The appellate authority was directed to dispose of the appeal in accordance with law within four months thereafter. The Court made no order as to costs. The connected miscellaneous petition was closed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the assessment order dated 24.06.2024, passed by the respondent, is liable to be quashed for lack of jurisdiction and violation of statutory provisions, as argued by the petitioner? 2. Whether the petitioner's failure to participate in the adjudication proceedings was due to bonafide reasons such as ill-health and reliance on an accountant, as submitted by the petitioner? 3. Whether the petitioner has an alternative statutory remedy of appeal, as argued by the respondent? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the ex parte assessment order was a result of his inability to participate in the proceedings due to ill-health and a failure of his accountant to manage compliance. He sought to quash the order on grounds of lack of jurisdiction and statutory violation. Respondent's Contention: The respondent argued that the assessment order was passed after issuing a show cause notice and personal hearing notices, and therefore, the Court should not interfere. The respondent further contended that the petitioner has an available appeal remedy under Section 107 of the GST Act, 2017, before the appellate Deputy Commissioner (GST), Tirunelveli, and that the petitioner should have availed this remedy instead of approaching the High Court directly.