Tvl. Madura Tours And Travels vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer- 1

Held

The Court acknowledged that the impugned order was appealable. It noted that the petitioner had failed to file an appeal within the prescribed time. However, considering the special facts and circumstances of the case, the Court permitted the petitioner to file an appeal within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. Since the petitioner had already remitted the entire tax, the question of making any pre-deposit did not arise. The Court directed that if the appeal papers were in order, they should be numbered and taken on file immediately. The appellate authority was instructed to dispose of the appeal within three months thereafter. The Court reiterated that an appeal proceeding is a continuation of the original proceeding and granted the petitioner liberty to adduce evidence before the appellate authority. All contentions of the petitioner were left open.

Facts

The petitioner, Tvl. Madura Tours & Travels, represented by its Proprietor P. Sri Saravanakumar, filed a writ petition challenging an order passed by the Deputy State Tax Officer – 1, Madurai Rural (East) Assessment Circle, dated 14.08.2024. The petitioner sought to quash this order, alleging it was illegal, without jurisdiction, and in gross violation of the principles of natural justice. The petitioner also prayed for a direction to the respondent to re-do the assessment afresh after providing an opportunity for a personal hearing as per the GST Act. The tax period in dispute is 2019-2020. The petitioner states that the entire tax has already been remitted.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order passed by the respondent is liable to be quashed for being illegal, without jurisdiction, and in gross violation of the principles of natural justice, particularly concerning the lack of a personal hearing, as per the provisions of the GST Act? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the impugned order suffered from illegality, lack of jurisdiction, and violated the principles of natural justice. Specifically, the petitioner contended that they were not afforded a personal hearing before the order was passed, which is a fundamental requirement under the GST Act. The petitioner sought a fresh assessment with an opportunity for a personal hearing. Respondent's Contention: The respondent, through the Additional Government Pleader, did not explicitly record arguments in the judgment. However, the court noted that the impugned order was appealable. The court also observed that the petitioner had already remitted the entire tax.