M/S.M.Sekar Prop Meenakshi Agency vs. The Assistant Commissioner

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. M. Sekar Prop Meenakshi Agency, filed a writ petition before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court challenging an assessment order dated 28.06.2023, passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax Office, Thoothukudi (the first respondent). The assessment order pertains to the year 2018-2019. The petitioner contended that the order was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice, as they were not provided with sufficient opportunity to present their case. The first respondent argued that a show cause notice (DRC-01) was issued on 26.05.2023, and that the petitioner had an alternative remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the GST Act, 2017, before the appellate Deputy Commissioner (GST Appeals), Tirunelveli.

Held

The Court noted the submission made by the learned Government Advocate for the first respondent that the petitioner has an appeal remedy before the appellate Deputy Commissioner (GST Appeals), Tirunelveli, under Section 107 of the GST Act, 2017. Consequently, the Court disposed of the writ petition by granting liberty 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, it shall be entertained by the appellate authority without reference to the period of limitation. The appellate authority was further directed to dispose of the appeal in accordance with law within three months thereafter. No order as to costs was made. The connected miscellaneous petitions were also closed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the assessment order dated 28.06.2023, passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax Office, Thoothukudi, is liable to be quashed for violating the principles of natural justice by not providing sufficient opportunity to the petitioner, as argued by the petitioner? 2. Whether the petitioner has an effective alternative remedy under Section 107 of the GST Act, 2017, as contended by the first respondent? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the impugned assessment order was passed without providing sufficient opportunity, thus violating the principles of natural justice, rendering the order liable for setting aside. Revenue's Contention: The first respondent (Revenue) contended that a show cause notice was issued on 26.05.2023, and therefore, the order was passed after due process. The Revenue further argued that the petitioner has an appeal remedy under Section 107 of the GST Act, 2017, and should have availed it instead of directly approaching the High Court.