Perumal S vs. The State Tax Officer (Fac)

Facts

The petitioner, S. Perumal, filed a writ petition before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court challenging an assessment order dated December 19, 2023, passed by the respondent, the State Tax Officer (FAC), Sengottai Assessment Circle. The assessment order pertains to the financial year 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 was issued on September 27, 2023, followed by reminders, and that the petitioner had an alternative appeal remedy under Section 107 of the GST Act, 2017, before the Deputy Commissioner (ST) (Appeal).

Held

The Court noted the submission by the learned Government Advocate that the petitioner has an appeal remedy before the Deputy Commissioner (ST) (Appeal), Tiruneveli, under Section 107 of the GST Act, 2017. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of with liberty granted to the petitioner to approach the appellate authority. The petitioner is permitted to raise all grounds raised 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 receipt of a copy of this order, the appellate authority shall entertain the appeal without reference to the period of limitation and dispose of it 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 respondent for the year 2017-2018 is illegal and in gross violation of the principles of natural justice due to the alleged lack of sufficient opportunity for the petitioner? The petitioner argued that the order was passed without adequate opportunity, thus violating natural justice principles and rendering it liable for setting aside. The respondent contended that a show cause notice was issued on September 27, 2023, followed by reminders on November 9, 2023, and December 12, 2023, implying that sufficient opportunity was provided and therefore, the order should not be interfered with. The respondent also highlighted the availability of an appeal remedy under Section 107 of the GST Act, 2017, suggesting the petitioner should have availed that instead of approaching the High Court directly.