M/S. P T Nadar Con vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer-I

Facts

The petitioner, M/s.P.T. NADAR CON, represented by its Proprietor T.Ponnampalam, filed a writ petition challenging an assessment order dated 26.02.2024, passed by the respondent, The Deputy State Tax Officer – I, Nanguneri. The assessment order pertains to the tax period April 2018 to March 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 was issued on 05.10.2023, followed by personal hearing notices on 07.11.2023, 15.11.2023, and 23.11.2023, and that the petitioner has an alternative appeal remedy under Section 107 of the GST Act, 2017. The Court took up the matter for final disposal at the admission stage with the consent of both parties.

Held

The Court noted the submission by the learned Government Advocate that the petitioner has an available appeal remedy before the Deputy Commissioner (GST Appeals) (State Tax), Tirunelveli, 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 was 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 whether the assessment order was in violation of natural justice was not directly decided by the High Court, but the petitioner was given an opportunity to raise all grounds before the appellate authority.

Key Issues

1. Whether the assessment order dated 26.02.2024, passed by the respondent for the tax period April 2018 to March 2019, is illegal and in gross violation of the principles of natural justice, as contended by the petitioner? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the assessment order was passed without providing sufficient opportunity, thus violating the principles of natural justice, and therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. Respondent's contention: The respondent contended that the assessment order was passed after issuing a show cause notice and multiple personal hearing notices, and that the petitioner has an alternative remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the GST Act, 2017, before the Deputy Commissioner (GST Appeals). Therefore, the respondent argued that there is no need for the High Court to interfere.