M/S. N.N. Engineering Works vs. The State Tax Officer (Ins) Iii
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, M/s.N.N.Engineering Works, filed a writ petition challenging an assessment order dated 12.09.2024 and a subsequent rectification order dated 25.11.2024, both passed by the respondent, The State Tax Officer (INS) III. These orders pertain to the assessment year 2019-2020. The petitioner contended that the adjudication order was passed without jurisdiction, as the Central GST Department should have initiated proceedings under Sections 73 and 74 of the CGST/TNGST Act, 2017. Furthermore, the petitioner argued that the assessment order was issued without providing sufficient opportunity, violating principles of natural justice, and that the demand was based on their own records, negating any intent to evade tax.
Held
The Court noted the submission by the learned Government Advocate that the petitioner has an appeal remedy before the appellate Deputy Commissioner (ST) (GST Appeal), Trichy, 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 receipt of the order, the appellate authority shall entertain it without reference to the period of limitation and dispose of the appeal in accordance with law within three months thereafter. The Court did not decide on the merits of the jurisdictional or natural justice arguments.
Key Issues
1. Whether the respondent, a State Tax Officer, had the jurisdiction to pass an adjudication order under Sections 73 and 74 of the CGST/TNGST Act, 2017, when such proceedings should have been initiated by the Central GST Department? 2. Whether the assessment order and subsequent rectification order were passed in violation of the principles of natural justice due to insufficient opportunity provided to the petitioner? The petitioner argued that the respondent lacked jurisdiction and that the orders were passed without sufficient opportunity, violating natural justice. They contended that the demand was based on their records, implying no wilful suppression or intent to evade tax. The respondent argued that show cause notices (DRC 01) and personal hearing notices were issued, and that the petitioner had an alternative appeal remedy under Section 107 of the GST Act, 2017, before the appellate Deputy Commissioner (ST), making the writ petition premature.
Sections Cited
Section 73, Section 74, Section 107
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Before: and
This writ petition is filed challenging the assessment order passed by the respondent on 12.09.2024, for the Assessment Year 2019-2020, which was subsequently confirmed by the rectification order passed by the respondent on 25.11.2024. 2. With the consent of both sides, this Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.
The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the adjudication order is without juri iction, as the Central GST Department is the competent authority to initiate proceedings under Sections 73 and 74 of the CGST / TNGST Act, 2017. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the assessment order for the year 2019-2020 has been passed without providing sufficient opportunity to the petitioner, which, according to the petitioner, is in violation of the principles of natural justice. The said order was also subsequently confirmed by the rectification order passed by the respondent on 25.11.2024. Further, the entire demand has been made based on the documents and statutory records maintained by the petitioner, and therefore, it cannot be alleged that the ____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis petitioner wilfully suppressed the information or acted with an intention to evade tax. Hence, the orders impugned in this writ petition, are liable to be set aside.
Mr.J.K.Jayaselan, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent submits that the impugned assessment order dated 12.09.2024 and the subsequent rectification order dated 25.11.2024 have been passed after issuing show cause notice in DRC 01 to the petitioner on 22.05.2024, followed by personal hearing notices dated 02.07.2024, 16.07.2024 and 27.07.2024 and therefore, there is no need to interfere with the impugned orders. He further submits that the petitioner is having an appeal remedy before the appellate Deputy Commissioner (ST) (GST Appeal), Trichy, under Section 107 of the GST Act, 2017. However, without invoking the appeal remedy, the petitioner has straightaway approached this Court.
Recording the submission made by the learned Government Advocate that the petitioner is having an appeal remedy before the appellate Deputy Commissioner (ST) (GST Appeal), Trichy, under Section 107 of the GST Act, 2017, this writ petition is disposed of, with liberty to the petitioner to approach ____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis the appellate authority and raise all the grounds raised in this writ petition in the appeal. In the event, if any appeal is filed within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, the appellate authority shall entertain the appeal without reference to the period of limitation and dispose of the same in accordance with law, within a period of three months thereafter. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. NCC : Yes / No
2025 Index : Yes / No smn2 To:- The State Tax Officer (INS) III, Office of the The Joint Commissioner (ST) (Intelligence), 1st Floor, No.107 B2, Thillai Nagar, North East Extn., Trichy-18. ____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis VIVEK KUMAR SINGH
, J.
smn2
2025 ____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Reproduced from the public record of the Madras High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.