M/S.Sri Sarguru Steel vs. The State Tax Officer

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Sri Sarguru Steel, filed a writ petition before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court challenging an assessment order dated 27.04.2024, passed by the respondent, the State Tax Officer, for the assessment year 2018-2019. The petitioner contended that the assessment order was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice, as they were not provided with sufficient opportunity. The respondent argued that a show cause notice (DRC-01) was issued on 31.01.2024, followed by personal hearing notices on 18.04.2024 and 22.04.2024, and therefore, no interference was warranted. The respondent also pointed out that the petitioner had an alternative appellate remedy under Section 107 of the GST Act, 2017.

Held

The Court noted the submission made by the learned Government Advocate that the petitioner has an appellate remedy before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeal), Madurai, under Section 107 of the GST Act, 2017. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of by granting liberty to the petitioner to approach 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 it without reference to the period of limitation and dispose of the same in accordance with law within three months thereafter. The Court did not decide on the merits of the petitioner's claim regarding the violation of natural justice.

Key Issues

1. Whether the assessment order dated 27.04.2024, passed by the respondent for the assessment year 2018-2019, is liable to be quashed for gross violation of the principles of natural justice, specifically for not providing sufficient opportunity to the petitioner? The petitioner argued that the assessment order was passed without providing sufficient opportunity, thus violating the principles of natural justice and rendering the order liable to be set aside. The respondent contended that the assessment order was passed after issuing a show cause notice and personal hearing notices, and therefore, there was no need to interfere. The respondent further submitted that the petitioner had an appeal remedy under Section 107 of the GST Act, 2017, and should have availed it instead of directly approaching the High Court.