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

Facts

The petitioner, Sri Sarguru Steel, represented by its partners, filed a writ petition before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court. The petition challenged an assessment order dated January 22, 2025, passed by the respondent, the State Tax Officer, for the assessment year 2017-2018. 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 July 31, 2024, followed by personal hearing notices on November 4, 2024, and January 17, 2025, and therefore, the order was valid. The respondent also pointed out 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 has an appeal remedy before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeal), Madurai, under Section 107 of the GST Act, 2017. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of with liberty granted to the petitioner to approach the appellate authority. The petitioner was directed to raise all grounds raised in the writ petition before the appellate authority. The appellate authority was instructed to entertain the appeal without reference to any delay if filed within two weeks from the date of receipt of the order and to dispose of the appeal in accordance with law within two months thereafter. No order as to costs was made. The Court did not decide on the merits of the petitioner's claim regarding violation of natural justice.

Key Issues

1. Whether the assessment order dated January 22, 2025, passed by the respondent for the assessment year 2017-2018 is illegal and passed in gross violation of the principles of natural justice, as contended by the petitioner? (Question of law and fact, turning on principles of natural justice and procedural fairness under the GST Act, 2017). Petitioner's arguments: The assessment order was passed without providing sufficient opportunity to the petitioner, thus violating the principles of natural justice, making the order liable to be set aside. Respondent's arguments: The assessment order was passed after issuing a show cause notice (DRC 01) on July 31, 2024, and subsequent personal hearing notices on November 4, 2024, and January 17, 2025. Therefore, there was no need to interfere with the order. The petitioner has an alternative remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the GST Act, 2017, and should have availed it instead of approaching the High Court directly.