M/S. N N Engineering Works vs. The State Tax Officer (Ins) Iii

Facts

The petitioner, M/s.N.N.Engineering Works, filed a writ petition before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court challenging an assessment order dated 27.08.2024, passed by the respondent, The State Tax Officer (INS) III. The assessment order pertains to the Assessment Year 2022-2023. The petitioner contended that the 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 was made without providing sufficient opportunity, violating principles of natural justice, and that the demand was based on existing records, not willful suppression. The respondent argued that the order was passed after issuing a show cause notice and personal hearing notices, and that the petitioner had an alternative appeal remedy under Section 107 of the GST Act, 2017.

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 Court disposed of the writ petition, granting the petitioner liberty to approach the appellate authority. All grounds raised in the writ petition could be raised in the appeal. The Court directed that if an appeal is filed within two weeks from the date of receipt of the order, the appellate authority shall entertain it without reference to the period of limitation and dispose of the same in accordance with law within three months thereafter. The Court did not decide the jurisdictional or natural justice issues raised by the petitioner, leaving them to be adjudicated by the appellate authority.

Key Issues

1. Whether the assessment order passed by the respondent State Tax Officer is without jurisdiction, considering the petitioner's contention that proceedings under Sections 73 and 74 of the CGST/TNGST Act, 2017, should have been initiated by the Central GST Department? The petitioner argued that the State Tax Officer lacked the authority to pass such an order. The respondent did not directly address this jurisdictional argument but highlighted the procedural steps taken and the availability of an appeal remedy. 2. Whether the assessment order was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice due to insufficient opportunity provided to the petitioner? The petitioner contended that they were not given adequate time or chance to present their case. The respondent countered by stating that a show cause notice and multiple personal hearing notices were issued, implying sufficient opportunity was given. 3. Whether the petitioner has an effective alternative remedy under Section 107 of the GST Act, 2017? The respondent argued that the petitioner should have availed the statutory appeal mechanism before approaching the High Court.