Tvl. Sri Ktm Synthetics vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)

Facts

The petitioner, Tvl. Sri KTM Synthetics, filed a writ petition challenging an assessment order dated July 12, 2024, passed by the Assistant Commissioner (ST), Tuticorin, for the tax period 2022-2023. The petitioner contended that the assessment order was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice, as they were not provided with sufficient opportunity to present their case. The respondent revenue authority argued that a show cause notice was issued on February 6, 2024, followed by personal hearing notices on March 8, 2023, April 16, 2024, and May 7, 2024, indicating that due process was followed. The respondent also pointed out that the petitioner had an alternative statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the GST Act, 2017.

Held

The Court noted the submission by the learned Government Advocate that the petitioner has an appeal remedy before the Deputy Commissioner (GST), Tirunelveli, under Section 107 of the GST Act, 2017. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of by granting the petitioner liberty to approach the appellate authority. The Court directed that if an appeal is filed within two weeks from the date of receipt of the order, the appellate authority shall entertain the appeal without reference to the period of limitation. The appellate authority is further directed to dispose of the appeal in accordance with law within four months thereafter. The Court did not decide on the merits of the petitioner's claim regarding the violation of natural justice.

Key Issues

1. Whether the assessment order dated July 12, 2024, passed by the respondent for the tax period 2022-2023, is liable to be quashed for violation of the principles of natural justice, as argued by the petitioner? 2. Whether the petitioner has an effective alternative remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the GST Act, 2017, as contended by the respondent? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner argued that the assessment order was passed without providing sufficient opportunity, thus violating the principles of natural justice, and sought to quash the order as illegal and without jurisdiction. Respondent's Argument: The respondent contended that the assessment order was passed after issuing a show cause notice and multiple personal hearing notices, thereby adhering to due process. They further argued that the petitioner possesses an appeal remedy under Section 107 of the GST Act, 2017, and should have availed it instead of directly approaching the High Court.