Tvl Dra Sp Vm Joint Venture vs. The State Tax Officer

Facts

The petitioner, DRA.SP.VM.Joint Venture, represented by its Partner V.Manoharan, filed a writ petition before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court. The petition challenged an assessment order dated July 23, 2024, and a subsequent rectification order dated October 14, 2024, both passed by the respondent, The State Tax Officer, Ramanathapuram Assessment Circle. These orders pertained to the financial year 2020-21. The petitioner sought to quash these orders and requested the respondent to redo the assessment proceedings. The prayer was amended by this Court on April 2, 2025. The matter was taken up for final disposal at the admission stage with the consent of both parties.

Held

The Court noted the submission by the learned Government Advocate for the respondent that the petitioner possesses an appeal remedy under Section 107 of the GST Act, 2017, before the Deputy Commissioner (ST) (GST Appeals), Ramanathapuram. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of by granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the appellate authority. The petitioner is 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 a copy of this order, the appellate authority shall entertain the appeal without considering the period of limitation. The appellate authority is further directed to dispose of the appeal in accordance with law within one month thereafter. No order as to costs was made.

Key Issues

1. Whether the assessment order and rectification order for the year 2020-21 were passed in violation of the principles of natural justice due to insufficient opportunity provided to the petitioner? (Question of law and fact) Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the assessment and rectification orders were passed without affording them sufficient opportunity, thereby violating the principles of natural justice. Consequently, the impugned orders are illegal and merit being set aside. Respondent's contention: The respondent contended that a show cause notice in DRC-01 was issued to the petitioner on March 21, 2024, prior to the passing of the assessment order. Therefore, there was no need for the Court to interfere. The respondent also pointed out that the petitioner has an alternative statutory remedy of appeal before the Deputy Commissioner (ST) (GST Appeals), Ramanathapuram, under Section 107 of the GST Act, 2017, and that the petitioner had approached the High Court directly without availing this remedy.