Muthuchamy Ds vs. The Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes

Facts

The petitioner, D.S.Muthuchamy, filed a writ petition before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court challenging an assessment order dated 30.04.2024, passed by the Deputy State Tax Officer-2, Palani-II Assessment Circle. The assessment order pertains to the assessment year 2018-2019. The petitioner contended that the assessment order was passed without providing sufficient opportunity, violating principles of natural justice. The respondents, represented by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and the Deputy State Tax Officer, argued that a show cause notice was issued on 14.11.2023, followed by reminders, and that the petitioner has an alternative appeal remedy under Section 107 of the GST Act, 2017.

Held

The Court noted the submission made by the learned Government Advocate for the respondents that the petitioner possesses an appeal remedy before the Deputy Commissioner (ST) (Appeal), Madurai, 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 directed that if an appeal is filed within two weeks from the date of receipt of the order, the appellate authority shall entertain the appeal without considering 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 dated 30.04.2024, passed by the Deputy State Tax Officer-2 for the assessment year 2018-2019, 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, concerning principles of natural justice and procedural fairness under GST law). Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the assessment order was passed without affording sufficient opportunity, thus violating the principles of natural justice and rendering the order liable for setting aside. Respondents' contention: The respondents contended that a show cause notice was duly issued on 14.11.2023, followed by reminders, and that the petitioner has an efficacious alternative remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the GST Act, 2017, before the Deputy Commissioner (ST) (Appeal), Madurai. They argued that the petitioner should have availed this remedy instead of approaching the High Court directly.