M/S. Saravana Health Care vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer - I

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Saravana Health Care, represented by its Proprietor P. Saravanan, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 02.04.2024, issued by the Deputy State Tax Officer - I, Trichy. The petitioner contended that due to ill-health and reliance on a part-time accountant, they were unable to participate in the adjudication proceedings, leading to an ex parte order. The respondent argued that a show cause notice was issued on 20.03.2024, and the petitioner has a statutory appeal remedy under Section 107 of the GST Act, 2017, which they failed to avail before approaching the High Court. The tax period in dispute is the Assessment Year 2018-2019.

Held

The Court noted the respondent's submission that the petitioner has an appeal remedy before the Deputy Commissioner (ST), Trichy, 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 Court directed that if the appeal is filed within two weeks from the 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 did not decide on the merits of the petitioner's claim regarding ill-health or the validity of the ex parte order, as the primary relief granted was the opportunity to pursue the statutory appeal.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned assessment order, passed ex parte, is liable to be quashed for lack of jurisdiction and violation of statutory provisions, considering the petitioner's inability to participate due to ill-health and accountant's failure? (Mixed question of law and fact, turning on principles of natural justice and procedural compliance under GST law). Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the ex parte order was passed without proper adjudication due to their bona fide inability to participate, stemming from ill-health and a trusted accountant's failure to manage compliance. They sought to quash the order on grounds of lack of jurisdiction and statutory violation. Respondent's arguments: The respondent contended that a show cause notice was duly issued on 20.03.2024, and therefore, the order was not passed without notice. They further argued that the petitioner possesses a statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the GST Act, 2017, and should have availed it instead of directly approaching the High Court under Article 226.