Sadhasivam Thiyagarajan vs. The State Tax Officer

Facts

The petitioner, Sadhasivam Thiyagarajan, filed a writ petition before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court challenging an assessment order dated 30.08.2024, bearing reference number ZD330824300088L, passed by the Respondent, the State Tax Officer, Woraiyur Assessment Circle, Trichy. The assessment order pertains to the assessment year 2019-2020. The petitioner contended that the order was passed without providing sufficient opportunity, violating principles of natural justice. The respondent argued that a show cause notice in DRC 01 was issued on 09.05.2023, followed by reminders, and that an appeal remedy under Section 107 of the GST Act, 2017, was available to the petitioner.

Held

The Court noted the submission by the learned Government Advocate that the petitioner has an available statutory appeal remedy before the Deputy Commissioner (ST) (Appeal), Tiruchirappalli, under Section 107 of the GST Act, 2017. Consequently, the Court disposed of the writ petition by 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 the appeal without reference to the period of limitation and dispose of the same in accordance with law within three months thereafter. No order as to costs was made. The connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the assessment order dated 30.08.2024, passed by the Respondent, is liable to be quashed for violation of the principles of natural justice due to insufficient opportunity provided to the petitioner? (Question of law and fact, turning on principles of natural justice and procedural fairness under GST law). Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the assessment order was passed without affording them adequate opportunity to present their case, thus violating the fundamental principles of natural justice. They contended that this procedural deficiency renders the impugned order invalid and liable for quashing. Respondent's Contention: The respondent contended that the assessment order was passed after issuing a show cause notice (DRC 01) on 09.05.2023, along with subsequent reminders on 12.06.2024, 21.06.2024, and 02.07.2024. They further submitted that the petitioner has an alternative statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the GST Act, 2017, before the Deputy Commissioner (ST) (Appeal), Tiruchirappalli, and that the petitioner ought to have availed this remedy instead of approaching the High Court directly.