Ramar. T vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of CGST And Central Excise

Held

The Court held that the petitioner has an alternative statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. The Court noted the submission by the respondents regarding the GST Council's recommendation for an amnesty scheme, which extends the time limit for filing appeals against demand orders under Sections 73 or 74 of the said Act up to 31st January 2024. Consequently, the Court found it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition by granting liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal before the Appellate Authority. The petitioner was directed to file the appeal within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. The Court did not decide on the merits of the assessment order itself, as the primary issue addressed was the availability and viability of the statutory appeal remedy.

Facts

The petitioner, T. Ramar, filed a writ petition challenging an assessment order dated 07.12.2022, passed by the Assistant Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise, Madurai-I Division. The order imposed service tax and penalty on the petitioner for the period from 01.10.2016 to 30.06.2017. The petitioner contended that the services provided to the Public Works Department were exempted under Notification No.25/2012, which was later withdrawn. The petitioner argued that a show cause notice was issued, a reply was filed, but the assessment order was passed without providing a personal hearing. The respondents pointed out that an appeal remedy was available under Section 107 of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, and that an amnesty scheme had been recommended by the GST Council to allow appeals up to 31st January 2024.

Key Issues

1. Whether the assessment order dated 07.12.2022, passed by the first respondent, is illegal and devoid of merits for not providing a personal hearing to the petitioner, thereby violating principles of natural justice, in light of the petitioner's contention that the services provided were exempted and a reply was filed to the show cause notice. Petitioner's argument: The petitioner argued that the assessment order was passed without affording a personal hearing, despite the petitioner having filed a reply to the show cause notice. The petitioner also contended that the services provided were initially exempted and the subsequent withdrawal of exemption was not properly considered. Revenue's argument: The respondents argued that the petitioner has an alternative statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. They further submitted that the GST Council has recommended an amnesty scheme, extending the time limit for filing appeals against demand orders under Sections 73 or 74 of the said Act up to 31st January 2024, making the appeal remedy viable.