M/S. De Zodiac Erecters vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer 2

Facts

The petitioner, De Zodiac Erecters, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 29.12.2023 passed by the respondent, The Deputy State Tax Officer, demanding GST of Rs. 28,05,678/- for the tax period July 2017 to March 2018. The petitioner had initially submitted a representation on 04.09.2024 requesting installment payments, and had paid Rs. 2,00,000/- in two installments on 04.09.2024 and 15.11.2024. Despite accepting the order and making partial payment, the petitioner subsequently challenged the order on the grounds that no show cause notice was served in accordance with Section 169 of the TNGST/CGST Act, and that the order was communicated only through the respondent's portal.

Held

The Court noted that the petitioner had accepted the impugned order dated 29.12.2023 and had paid a part of the tax amount. The Court observed that in such circumstances, the petitioner could not be permitted to submit further explanations or reasons against the order. However, the Court acknowledged that the petitioner could approach the appellate authority for appropriate relief against the impugned order. Therefore, the Court directed the petitioner to file an appeal before the Appellate Authority within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. The writ petition was disposed of with this direction. The Court did not decide on the merits of the petitioner's claim regarding the violation of natural justice or the validity of the service of notice.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order dated 29.12.2023 is liable to be quashed for gross violation of the Principles of Natural Justice, specifically for non-service of a show cause notice in accordance with Section 169 of the TNGST/CGST Act, as argued by the petitioner. 2. Whether the petitioner, having accepted the order and made part payment, can now challenge the validity of the order on grounds of procedural irregularity, as contended by the respondent. Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner argued that the impugned order was illegal and passed in gross violation of the Principles of Natural Justice because no proper show cause notice was served, and the communication was only through the respondent's portal, not in consonance with Section 169 of the TNGST/CGST Act. The petitioner sought a fresh assessment after providing an opportunity for a personal hearing. Respondent's Argument: The respondent contended that after accepting the order and paying a part of the tax amount, the petitioner cannot be permitted to submit further explanations or reasons. The respondent suggested that the petitioner should approach the appellate authority for appropriate relief.