Tvl. G P Textiles vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)

Facts

The petitioner, Tvl. G.P. Textiles, represented by its proprietor, filed a writ petition challenging an assessment order dated 30.08.2024 and a consequential order in FORM GST DRC-07 dated 30.08.2024, passed by the Assistant Commissioner (ST), Karur. The tax period under challenge is April 2019 to March 2020. The petitioner contended that the assessment order was passed without providing sufficient opportunity, violating principles of natural justice. The respondent argued that the petitioner had an alternative remedy of appeal before the Deputy Commissioner (ST) (Appeal), Erode, under Section 107 of the GST Act, 2017, and had approached the High Court directly.

Held

The Court noted the submission by the learned Government Advocate for the respondent that the petitioner possesses an appeal remedy before the Deputy Commissioner (ST) (Appeal), Erode, 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. The appellate authority is further directed to dispose of the appeal in accordance with law within three months thereafter. The Court made no order as to costs. The issue of violation of principles of natural justice and the legality of the assessment order itself were not directly decided by the High Court, as the matter was remitted to the appellate authority.

Key Issues

1. Whether the assessment order passed by the respondent for the tax period April 2019 - March 2020 is liable to be quashed for violation of the principles of natural justice, specifically the lack of a personal hearing, as contended by the petitioner? 2. Whether the petitioner is required to exhaust the statutory appeal remedy under Section 107 of the GST Act, 2017, before approaching the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, as argued by the respondent? Petitioner's contention: The assessment order is illegal, without jurisdiction, and in gross violation of the principles of natural justice because a personal hearing was not provided. The petitioner seeks to quash the impugned orders and a direction for a fresh assessment after providing an opportunity of personal hearing. Respondent's contention: The petitioner has an available statutory appeal remedy before the Deputy Commissioner (ST) (Appeal), Erode, under Section 107 of the GST Act, 2017, and should have availed it instead of directly filing a writ petition.