Veludurai C vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer-1

Facts

The petitioner, C. Veludurai, filed a writ petition before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court challenging an assessment order dated 16.04.2024, issued by the Deputy State Tax Officer – 1, Sengottai. The 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 respondent revenue authority argued that a show cause notice (DRC 01) was issued on 03.07.2023, followed by several reminders, indicating that the petitioner was given notice. The respondent also pointed out that the petitioner has an alternative statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the GST Act, 2017.

Held

The Court noted the submission made by the learned Government Advocate regarding the availability of an appeal remedy to the petitioner before the Deputy Commissioner (ST) (Appeal), Tirunelveli, 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 was directed 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 the order, the appellate authority shall entertain the appeal without reference to the period of limitation and dispose of it in accordance with the law within three months thereafter. No order as to costs was made.

Key Issues

1. Whether the assessment order dated 16.04.2024, passed by the Deputy State Tax Officer – 1, Sengottai, is liable to be quashed for violation of the principles of natural justice, specifically for not providing sufficient opportunity to the petitioner for the assessment year 2018-2019? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the assessment order was passed without sufficient opportunity, thus violating the principles of natural justice and rendering the order liable for setting aside. Respondent's contention: The respondent contended that a show cause notice was issued on 03.07.2023, followed by subsequent reminders, and therefore, the petitioner was adequately notified. The respondent further argued that the petitioner has an available statutory appeal remedy under Section 107 of the GST Act, 2017, and should have availed it instead of directly approaching the High Court.