Kannan Yogalakshmi vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer - 1

Held

The Court held that while the order of the appellate authority rejecting the appeal memorandum on the sole ground of it not being in the appropriate format could not be said to be incorrect, in the interest of justice, the petitioner should be permitted to file a fresh set of appeal papers in the correct format. The Court noted that the petitioner had already deposited 10% of the disputed tax amount and therefore did not need to make any further remittance. If the fresh appeal papers were in order, they were to be numbered and disposed of on merits and in accordance with law. The impugned order was interfered with to this extent, and the relief was granted to the petitioner on these terms. The Court expressly left undecided the merits of the original GST assessment order.

Facts

The petitioner, Kannan Yogalakshmi, Partner of Tvl.Alfha Coach Builders, filed a writ petition challenging an order passed by the first respondent, the Deputy State Tax Officer-1, Karur-2 Circle. The order, dated 04.12.2023, was a GST assessment order (reference No.ZD3312230150925) along with Form GST DRC-07. The petitioner sought to quash this order for being illegal and in violation of natural justice, and requested a fresh assessment with an opportunity for a personal hearing. The petitioner had previously filed an appeal before the second respondent, the Deputy Commissioner(GST-Appeal), but this appeal was rejected solely on the ground that the appeal memorandum was not in the appropriate format. The petitioner had already deposited 10% of the disputed tax amount.

Key Issues

1. Whether the rejection of the petitioner's appeal by the appellate authority on the sole ground of the appeal memorandum not being in the appropriate format was legally sustainable, considering the principles of natural justice? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the assessment order was illegal and a gross violation of the principles of natural justice. While not explicitly stated in the judgment, the implication is that the rejection of the appeal on a procedural technicality prevented a substantive hearing on the merits of the assessment. Revenue/State's contention: The judgment notes that the appellate authority's order rejecting the appeal on the ground of an inappropriate format "cannot be said to be incorrect." This suggests the revenue's position was that the procedural defect was sufficient to uphold the rejection of the appeal.