M/S. Morn INDIA Technologies vs. The State Tax Officer

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Morn India Technologies, represented by its partner, filed a writ petition before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court. The petition challenged an assessment order dated December 31, 2023, issued by the respondent, the State Tax Officer, for the year 2017-2018. The petitioner contended that due to ill-health and the failure of their part-time accountant to ensure statutory compliance, they were unable to participate in the adjudication proceedings, leading to an ex parte order. The respondent argued that a show cause notice was issued on September 29, 2023, followed by a personal hearing notice on November 14, 2023, and that the petitioner had an alternative remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the GST Act, 2017.

Held

The Court held that the petitioner had an available statutory remedy of appeal before the appellate Deputy Commissioner (State Tax) under Section 107 of the GST Act, 2017. Recording the submission of the learned Government Advocate regarding this alternative remedy, the Court decided not to interfere with the impugned order directly through a writ petition. The Court's reasoning was based on the principle that statutory remedies should generally be exhausted before approaching the High Court under Article 226. The Court's decision was to dispose of the writ petition, granting the petitioner liberty to approach the appellate authority. The appellate authority was directed to entertain the appeal, even if filed beyond the normal period of limitation, provided it was filed within two weeks from the receipt of the Court's order. The appeal was to be disposed of on merits within three months thereafter. No costs were awarded.

Key Issues

1. Whether the High Court should entertain a writ petition challenging an assessment order when an alternative statutory remedy of appeal is available under Section 107 of the GST Act, 2017? The petitioner argued that the impugned order was passed without jurisdiction and in clear violation of statutory provisions, and that due to personal health issues and the failure of their accountant, they could not participate in the proceedings, resulting in an ex parte order. They sought to quash the order. The respondent contended that the assessment order was passed after issuing a show cause notice and a personal hearing notice, and that the petitioner had a statutory right to appeal before the appellate Deputy Commissioner (State Tax) under Section 107 of the GST Act, 2017. Therefore, the respondent argued, the writ petition was not maintainable.