M/S.Sri Neelakanda Vinayaga Urakkadai vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Sri Neelakanda Vinayaga Urakkadai, represented by its Proprietor Jayaraman Neelakandan, filed a writ petition challenging an assessment order passed by the Assistant Commissioner (ST), Pudukkottai - I Assessment Circle, dated 30.08.2024. This order pertains to 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 (DRC 01) was issued on 24.05.2024, followed by personal hearing notices on 05.07.2024, 20.07.2024, and 25.07.2024, asserting that the petitioner had adequate opportunity. The respondent also pointed out that the petitioner has an alternative appeal remedy 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 Deputy Commissioner (ST) (Appeal), Tiruchirapalli, under Section 107 of the GST Act, 2017. Consequently, the Court disposed of the writ petition, granting the petitioner liberty 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 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. No order as to costs was made.

Key Issues

1. Whether the assessment order dated 30.08.2024, passed by the respondent for the assessment year 2019-2020, is liable to be quashed for violation of the principles of natural justice due to insufficient opportunity provided to the petitioner? (Question of law and fact, turning on principles of natural justice and procedural fairness under GST law). Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the assessment order was passed without affording sufficient opportunity, thus violating the principles of natural justice and rendering the order illegal, arbitrary, and without jurisdiction. Respondent's Contention: The respondent contended that the assessment order was passed after issuing a show cause notice and providing multiple personal hearing notices, indicating that sufficient opportunity was given. The respondent further argued that the petitioner has an alternative statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the GST Act, 2017, and should have availed that instead of approaching the High Court directly.