M/S. Selvan Traders vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St) (Fac)

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Selvan Traders, represented by its Proprietrix, M. Kangumuthammal, filed a writ petition before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court. The petition challenged an assessment order dated 10.11.2023, issued by the respondent, The Assistant Commissioner (ST) (FAC), Tenkasi. This order pertains to the tax period of 2017-2018. The petitioner contended that the assessment order was passed without providing sufficient opportunity, violating principles of natural justice. The respondent argued that a show cause notice (DRC 01) was issued on 19.08.2023, followed by reminders, and that the petitioner has an alternative appeal remedy.

Held

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

Key Issues

1. Whether the assessment order dated 10.11.2023, issued by the respondent for the year 2017-2018, is liable to be quashed for violation of principles of natural justice due to insufficient opportunity provided to the petitioner? The petitioner argued that the impugned assessment order was passed without affording adequate opportunity to present their case, thereby violating the fundamental principles of natural justice. The petitioner sought to quash the order on this ground. The respondent contended that a show cause notice in Form GST DRC 01 was issued on 19.08.2023, followed by subsequent reminders on 03.10.2023, 17.10.2023, and 20.10.2023. 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.