M/S. Tvl Sri Deepika Agency vs. The State Tax Officer

Facts

The petitioner, Tvl. Sri Deepika Agency, represented by its Proprietor K. Adaikalam, filed a writ petition before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court. The petition challenged an assessment order dated 27.08.2024, passed by the respondent, the State Tax Officer, Madurai Rural West Circle, for the assessment year 2019-2020. 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 was issued on 22.05.2024, followed by personal hearing notices on 30.07.2024 and 16.08.2024, and that the petitioner had an alternative remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the GST Act, 2017.

Held

The Court noted the submission by the learned Government Advocate that the petitioner possesses an appeal remedy before the appellate Deputy Commissioner (ST) (GST Appeal), Madurai, under Section 107 of the GST Act, 2017. Consequently, the Court disposed of the writ petition by granting the petitioner liberty 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, the appellate authority shall entertain the appeal without considering the period of limitation and shall dispose of it in accordance with law within three months thereafter. No order as to costs was made.

Key Issues

1. Whether the assessment order dated 27.08.2024, passed by the respondent for the year 2019-2020, is liable to be quashed for violation of the principles of natural justice due to insufficient opportunity provided to the petitioner? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the assessment order was passed without affording them sufficient opportunity to present their case, thereby violating the principles of natural justice. They sought to quash the impugned order and requested the respondent to redo the assessment proceedings. Respondent's Contention: 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 for interference. The respondent further submitted that the petitioner has an available statutory appeal remedy under Section 107 of the GST Act, 2017, before the appellate Deputy Commissioner (ST) (GST Appeal), Madurai, and that the petitioner had prematurely approached the High Court without exhausting this remedy.