Nesam Provision vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer

Facts

The petitioner, M/s.Nesam Provision, filed a writ petition challenging an assessment order dated December 31, 2023, passed by the respondent, the Deputy State Tax Officer, for the Assessment Year 2017-2018. The petitioner contended that all communications, including notices and orders, were uploaded only on the GST portal, without physical or alternative service as mandated by Section 169 of the GST Act. Due to business cessation and the departure of their part-time accountant, the petitioner remained unaware of the proceedings, leading to an ex parte order. The petitioner also stated that Rs. 1,79,000/- was encashed from their bank account by the respondent on April 24, 2025. The respondent argued that the petitioner has an alternative appellate remedy under Section 107 of the GST Act.

Held

The Court noted the respondent's submission that the petitioner has an appellate remedy under Section 107 of the GST Act, 2017. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of by granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the appellate authority. The Court directed that if an appeal is filed within two weeks of receiving a copy of the order, the appellate authority shall entertain it without reference to the period of limitation and without insisting on the 10% pre-deposit. The pre-deposit amount was to be adjusted against the Rs. 1,79,000/- already encashed. The appellate authority was directed to dispose of the appeal on merits within three months thereafter. The Court did not decide the merits of the petitioner's challenge to the assessment order itself.

Key Issues

1. Whether the assessment order dated December 31, 2023, passed by the respondent for the Assessment Year 2017-2018 is liable to be quashed on the grounds of lack of proper service of notice and opportunity to be heard, as mandated by Section 169 of the GST Act? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the assessment order is illegal, arbitrary, and without jurisdiction because notices and orders were only uploaded to the GST portal, violating Section 169 of the GST Act. They claimed ignorance of the proceedings due to business cessation and the accountant's departure, resulting in an ex parte order. They also highlighted the encashment of Rs. 1,79,000/- from their bank account. Respondent's arguments: The respondent contended that the petitioner has an available statutory remedy of appeal before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) under Section 107 of the GST Act, 2017, and therefore, should not have approached the High Court directly.