M/S. Sethu Medicals vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St) (Fac)
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, M/s. Sethu Medicals, represented by its Proprietor, filed a writ petition before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court. The petition challenged an assessment order dated 23.08.2023, issued by the respondent, The Assistant Commissioner (ST) (FAC), for the tax period 2017-2018. The petitioner contended that the assessment order was passed without providing sufficient opportunity, violating principles of natural justice. The respondent argued that a show cause notice (DRC-01) was issued on 28.06.2023, followed by a reminder on 09.08.2023, and that the petitioner had an alternative 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 available appeal remedy before the appellate Deputy Commissioner (ST) (GST 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 all grounds raised in the writ petition can be presented in the appeal. The appellate authority was instructed to entertain the appeal if filed within two weeks from the date of receipt of the order, irrespective of the period of limitation, and to dispose of it in accordance with law within three months thereafter. No costs were awarded.
Key Issues
1. Whether the assessment order dated 23.08.2023, passed by the respondent for the year 2017-2018, is liable to be quashed for violation of the principles of natural justice due to insufficient opportunity provided to the petitioner? The petitioner argued that the impugned assessment order was passed without affording them sufficient opportunity, thereby violating the principles of natural justice and rendering the order liable for setting aside. The respondent contended that a show cause notice was issued on 28.06.2023, followed by a reminder on 09.08.2023, indicating that due process was followed. The respondent further highlighted that the petitioner possesses an alternative statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the GST Act, 2017, before the appellate Deputy Commissioner (ST), Madurai, and that the petitioner had directly approached the High Court without availing this remedy.
Sections Cited
Section 107
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Before: and
This writ petition is filed challenging the assessment order passed by the respondent, dated 23.08.2023, for the year 2017-2018. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the impugned assessment order has been passed without providing sufficient opportunity to the petitioner, which according to the petitioner, is in violation to the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the order impugned in this writ petition, is liable to be set aside.
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 28.06.2023, followed by subsequent reminder, dated 09.08.2023 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 (ST) (GST Appeal), Madurai, under Section 107 of the GST Act, 2017. However, without invoking
the appeal remedy, the petitioner has straightaway approached this Court. ____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Recording the submission made by the learned Government Advocate that the petitioner is having an appeal remedy before the appellate Deputy Commissioner (ST) (GST Appeal), Madurai, 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 same shall be entertained by the appellate authority without reference to the period of limitation and disposed of in accordance with law, within a period of three months thereafter. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. NCC : Yes / No
2025 Index : Yes / No smn2 To:- The Assistant Commissioner (ST) (FAC), K.K. Nagar Assessment Circle, Madurai. ____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis VIVEK KUMAR SINGH
, J.
smn2
2025 ____________ 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.