Oasys Marketing Agency vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer -2

Facts

The petitioner, Oasys Marketing Agency, represented by its Proprietor R. Elangovan, filed a writ petition before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court. The petition challenged an assessment order dated 22.04.2024 passed by the first respondent, the Deputy State Tax Officer-2, and a consequential order dated 29.08.2024 (Form GST DRC-07) issued by the second respondent, the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, for the period 2019-2020. The petitioner contended that the assessment order was only communicated through the online portal and not physically served, thus violating principles of natural justice by denying an opportunity for a personal hearing. The respondents argued that show cause notices and personal hearing notices were issued, and an appeal remedy under Section 107 of the TNGST Act, 2017, was available.

Held

The Court noted the submission by the learned Government Advocate that the petitioner possesses an appeal remedy before the Deputy Commissioner (ST) (GST), Trichy, under Section 107 of the GST Act, 2017. Consequently, the Court disposed of the writ petition, granting the petitioner liberty to approach the appellate authority. The petitioner is permitted to raise all grounds raised in the writ petition before 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 it without reference to the period of limitation. The appellate authority is further directed to dispose of the appeal in accordance with law within three months thereafter. No order as to costs was made.

Key Issues

1. Whether the assessment order passed by the first respondent, communicated solely through the online portal without physical service, violates the principles of natural justice by denying the petitioner an opportunity for a personal hearing, thereby rendering the order arbitrary and contrary to law? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the assessment order was passed without proper physical service, leading to a violation of natural justice as they were not afforded a personal hearing. They contended that the order was arbitrary and contrary to law. Respondents' arguments: The respondents contended that show cause notices and personal hearing notices were issued to the petitioner. They further argued that the petitioner has an alternative statutory remedy of appeal before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (ST) GST Appeal, Tiruchirappalli, under Section 107 of the TNGST Act, 2017, and therefore, the writ petition should not be entertained.