R Kumaresan vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)

Facts

The petitioner, R. Kumaresan, proprietor of M/s. R.K. Metal, filed a writ petition challenging an order passed by the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer (second respondent) under Section 73 of the CGST Act, dated 25.08.2024. The petitioner contended that the ex-parte order for the period April 2019 to March 2020 was passed without providing a sufficient opportunity to present his case and was only uploaded on the GST portal, not communicated personally. Subsequently, a recovery notice dated 18.12.2024 was issued by the Assistant Commissioner (ST) (first respondent) to the petitioner's bank, leading to the freezing of his bank account. The petitioner sought to quash the impugned order and de-freeze his bank account.

Held

The Court acknowledged the submission by the learned Government Advocate for the respondents that the petitioner has an alternative remedy of appeal before the Appellate Commissioner under Section 107 of the TNGST Act, 2017. Consequently, the Court directed the petitioner to exhaust this statutory remedy. The petitioner is to prefer an appeal along with the necessary pre-deposit within one month from the date of receiving a copy of this order. The Appellate Commissioner is directed to entertain the appeal without considering the period of limitation and dispose of it on its merits within two months thereafter. The Court did not decide on the merits of the petitioner's challenge to the impugned order.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order passed under Section 73 of the CGST Act is liable to be quashed for violation of principles of natural justice, specifically for not affording the petitioner a sufficient opportunity to present his case and for lack of proper communication, as argued by the petitioner? 2. Whether the petitioner has an alternative remedy of appeal before the Appellate Commissioner under Section 107 of the TNGST Act, 2017, as contended by the respondents?