Ms Thirumalai Balaji Constructions vs. The Deputy Commissioner (St)

Facts

The petitioner, M/s.Thirumalai Balaji Constructions, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 30.09.2024, passed by the second respondent, the State Tax Officer, under Section 74(1) of the TNGST Act, 2017. The impugned order directed the petitioner to pay tax of Rs. 55,25,552/- along with interest and penalty. The petitioner contended that the order was passed without affording them an opportunity of personal hearing, violating principles of natural justice. The revenue argued that the petitioner failed to obtain registration under Section 24 of the Act and did not furnish statutory returns (GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B) as required under Sections 37(1) and 39(1), leading to the non-filing being treated as suppression of purchases. The revenue also pointed out that an appeal remedy was available under Section 107 of the TNGST Act.

Held

The Court noted the submission by the learned Government Advocate that the petitioner has an appeal remedy before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (ST) GST Appeal, Tiruchirappalli, under Section 107 of the TNGST Act, 2017. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of with liberty granted to the petitioner to approach the appellate authority. The Court directed that if an appeal is filed within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, the appellate authority shall entertain the appeal and dispose of it in accordance with law within three months thereafter. The Court did not decide on the merits of the petitioner's grounds regarding the violation of natural justice or the validity of the assessment order itself, as the primary direction was to pursue the statutory appeal.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned assessment order dated 30.09.2024, passed by the second respondent under Section 74(1) of the TNGST Act, 2017, is liable to be quashed for violation of the principles of natural justice, specifically the lack of a personal hearing for the petitioner? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the assessment order was passed arbitrarily and in violation of the principles of natural justice because they were not given an opportunity for a personal hearing before the order was issued. They also contended that the order was not in conformity with the provisions of the GST Act. Revenue's arguments: The revenue contended that the petitioner failed to obtain registration under Section 24 of the Act and did not furnish statutory returns as required under Sections 37(1) and 39(1) of the TNGST Act, 2017. This non-filing was treated as suppression of purchases, attracting tax liability and penalty under Section 63. The revenue further argued that the petitioner had an alternative statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the TNGST Act, 2017, and should have availed it instead of approaching the High Court directly.