Tvl Chitra Hem Construction Company vs. The State Tax Officer

Facts

The petitioner, Tvl.Chitra Hem Construction Company, represented by its partner D.Senthil Kumar, filed a writ petition before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court. The petition challenged an assessment order dated 05.09.2024, passed by the respondent, the State Tax Officer, Roving Squad - 3, for the tax period 2022-2023. The petitioner sought to quash this order and requested the respondent to redo the assessment proceedings. The core of the petitioner's grievance was that the assessment order was passed without providing sufficient opportunity, violating principles of natural justice.

Held

The Court noted the submission made by the learned Government Advocate for the respondent, stating that the petitioner possesses an appeal remedy before the appellate Deputy Commissioner (ST) (GST Appeals), Tirunelveli, under Section 107 of the GST Act, 2017. Consequently, the Court disposed of the writ petition by granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the appellate authority. The petitioner was permitted to raise all the grounds that were presented in the writ petition before the appellate authority. The Court further directed that if an appeal is filed within two weeks from the date of receiving a copy of this order, the appellate authority shall entertain it without considering the period of limitation and dispose of the appeal in accordance with the law within four months thereafter. No order as to costs was made.

Key Issues

1. Whether the assessment order dated 05.09.2024, passed by the respondent for the year 2022-2023, is illegal and devoid of merits due to violation of principles of natural justice, as argued by the petitioner. Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the impugned assessment order was passed without affording them sufficient opportunity to present their case, thereby violating the principles of natural justice. They contended that this procedural deficiency rendered the order liable to be set aside. Respondent's Contention: The respondent, represented by the Government Advocate, contended that the assessment order was passed after issuing a show cause notice (DRC-01) on 29.06.2024, followed by personal hearing notices on 31.07.2024, 14.08.2024, and 22.08.2024. Therefore, the respondent argued that sufficient opportunity was provided and the order should not be interfered with. The respondent also pointed out that the petitioner has an alternative statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the GST Act, 2017, before the appellate Deputy Commissioner (ST) (GST Appeals), Tirunelveli, and that the petitioner had prematurely approached the High Court without exhausting this remedy.