M/S. Muthu Krishnan Subramanian vs. The State Tax Officer
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, M/s.Muthu Krishnan Subramanian, a works contractor, filed a writ petition before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court challenging an assessment order dated 23.04.2024, issued by the respondent, the State Tax Officer, Nanguneri Assessment Circle. The order pertains to the assessment year 2018-2019 and was passed under Section 73 of the TNGST Act, 2017. The petitioner contended that the assessment order was passed without providing sufficient opportunity, violating principles of natural justice. The petitioner attributed this failure to a part-time accountant's lack of communication regarding the proceedings, leading to the petitioner's inability to participate. The respondent argued that a show cause notice (DRC-01) was issued on 27.12.2023 and that an appeal remedy under Section 107 of the GST Act, 2017, was available.
Held
The Court noted the respondent's submission that the petitioner has an appeal remedy before the appellate Deputy Commissioner (GST Appeals) (State Tax), Tirunelveli, 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 was 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 reference to the period of limitation and dispose of it within three months thereafter. No order as to costs was made.
Key Issues
1. Whether the assessment order dated 23.04.2024, issued by the State Tax Officer 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? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the assessment order was passed without affording sufficient opportunity, violating the principles of natural justice. They claimed reliance on a part-time accountant who failed to inform them about the proceedings, resulting in their inability to participate. Therefore, the impugned order is illegal, arbitrary, and without jurisdiction. Respondent's arguments: The respondent contended that a show cause notice was issued on 27.12.2023, and therefore, the impugned order should not be interfered with. They further submitted that the petitioner has an alternative remedy of appeal before the appellate Deputy Commissioner (GST Appeals) under Section 107 of the GST Act, 2017, and that the petitioner approached the High Court directly without availing this remedy.
Sections Cited
Section 73, Section 107
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Before: and
This writ petition has been filed challenging the assessment order of the respondent, dated 23.04.2024, for the Assessment Year 2018-2019. 2. With the consent of both sides, this Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order of assessment for the year 2018-2019 was passed without providing sufficient opportunity to the petitioner, which, according to the petitioner, is in violation of principles of natural justice. The learned counsel further submits that due to lack of knowledge about GST and limited portal access, the petitioner had fully relied on a part-time accountant, who failed to inform the petitioner about the assessment proceedings. As a result, the petitioner was unable to participate in the adjudication proceedings, which leads to the issuance of the impugned order. Therefore, the order impugned in this writ petition, is liable to be set aside. ____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Mr.J.K.Jayaselan, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent submits that the impugned assessment order has been passed after issuing show cause notice in DRC 01 to the petitioner on 27.12.2023 and therefore, there is no need to interfere with the impugned order. He further submits that the petitioner is having an appeal remedy before the appellate Deputy Commissioner (GST Appeals) (State Tax), Tirunelveli, under Section 107 of the GST Act, 2017. However, without invoking the appeal remedy, the petitioner has straightaway approached this Court.
Recording the submission made by the learned Government Advocate that the petitioner is having an appeal remedy before the appellate Deputy Commissioner (GST Appeals) (State Tax), Tirunelveli, under Section 107 of the GST Act, 2017, this writ petition is disposed of, with liberty to the petitioner to approach the appellate authority and raise all the grounds raised in this writ petition in the appeal. In the event, if any appeal is filed within a period of 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 the same in accordance with law, within a period of three months thereafter. There ____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. NCC : Yes / No
2025 Index : Yes / No (2/2)
smn2 To:- The State Tax Officer, Nanguneri Assessment Circle, Nanguneri. ____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis VIVEK KUMAR SINGH
, J.
smn2
2025 (2/2) ____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Reproduced from the public record of the Madras High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.