I. Vahitha vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer (Fac)

Facts

The petitioner, I. Vahitha, Proprietor of M/s. Ruby Traders, filed a writ petition challenging an assessment order dated 04.04.2024 for the assessment year 2018-19, issued by the Deputy State Tax Officer (FAC), Dindigul Rural Assessment Circle, under Section 73 of the TNGST Act, 2017. The petitioner contended that due to a lack of knowledge about GST and limited portal access, they relied on a part-time accountant who failed to inform them about the assessment proceedings. Consequently, the petitioner could not participate in the adjudication, leading to an ex parte order. The respondent argued that a show cause notice (DRC-01) was issued on 26.05.2023, followed by personal hearing notices on 13.10.2023, 14.11.2023, and 25.03.2024, and therefore, the order should not be interfered with. The respondent also pointed out that the petitioner had an appeal remedy under Section 107 of the GST Act, 2017.

Held

The Court noted the submission by the learned Government Advocate that the petitioner has an appeal remedy before the appellate Deputy Commissioner (State Taxes) (GST 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 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 in accordance with the law within three months thereafter. No order as to costs was made.

Key Issues

1. Whether the ex parte assessment order dated 04.04.2024, issued under Section 73 of the TNGST Act, 2017, is liable to be quashed due to the petitioner's alleged lack of opportunity to participate in the proceedings? The petitioner argued that due to reliance on a part-time accountant and lack of GST knowledge, they were unaware of the proceedings and thus unable to participate, rendering the ex parte order illegal and arbitrary. The respondent contended that proper notices, including a show cause notice and personal hearing notices, were issued to the petitioner, and therefore, the order was passed after due process. The respondent also highlighted the availability of an alternative statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the GST Act, 2017, suggesting the petitioner should have availed that instead of approaching the High Court directly.