M/S.Monarch Industrial Products I PVT LTD vs. The Assistant Commissioner (CT)

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Monarch Industrial Products (I) Pvt. Ltd., filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 13.01.2025 passed by the respondent, The Assistant Commissioner (CT), Theni-II Assessment Circle. This order was in response to a rectification application filed by the petitioner on 19.06.2024 concerning the financial year 2018-2019. The petitioner contended that the impugned order was passed arbitrarily, without valid reasons, and without providing sufficient opportunity, thus violating principles of natural justice. The respondent argued that a personal hearing notice was issued on 04.11.2024 and that the petitioner had an alternative appellate remedy under Section 107 of the GST Act, 2017.

Held

The Court acknowledged the submission made by the learned Government Advocate for the respondent regarding the availability of an appeal remedy for the petitioner before the Deputy Commissioner, Madurai, under Section 107 of the GST Act, 2017. Consequently, the Court decided to dispose of the writ petition 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 further 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 the appeal in accordance with law within three months thereafter. No order as to costs was made.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order dated 13.01.2025, passed by the Assistant Commissioner (CT) in rectification application No. 33AADCM8264A1ZS, is liable to be quashed for being arbitrary and passed in violation of the principles of natural justice, specifically for lack of valid reasons and sufficient opportunity, as contended by the petitioner. 2. Whether the petitioner has an effective alternative remedy of appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, Madurai, under Section 107 of the GST Act, 2017, as argued by the respondent. Petitioner's Contention: The impugned order is arbitrary, lacks valid reasons, and denies sufficient opportunity, violating natural justice. Therefore, it should be quashed and the rectification application re-heard. Respondent's Contention: The order was passed after issuing a personal hearing notice, and the petitioner has an available statutory appeal remedy under Section 107 of the GST Act, 2017, which they should have availed instead of directly approaching the High Court.