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 before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court 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 2017-2018. The petitioner contended that the impugned order was passed 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 appeal remedy under Section 107 of the GST Act, 2017.

Held

The Court noted the submission by the learned Government Advocate for the respondent that the petitioner possesses an appeal remedy before the Deputy Commissioner, Madurai, 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 was directed to raise all grounds presented in the writ petition before the appellate authority. The appellate authority was instructed to entertain the appeal, even if filed beyond the period of limitation, provided it is filed within two weeks from the date of receipt of the Court's order. The appellate authority is 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 impugned order dated 13.01.2025, passed by the respondent in the rectification application, is liable to be quashed for violation of principles of natural justice, specifically for not providing sufficient opportunity and valid reasons, as argued by the petitioner? 2. Whether the petitioner, having approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, has bypassed the statutory appeal remedy available under Section 107 of the GST Act, 2017, as contended by the respondent? Petitioner's Contention: The impugned order is arbitrary and liable to be set aside as it was passed without assigning valid reasons and without providing sufficient opportunity, violating the principles of natural justice. Respondent's Contention: The impugned order was passed after issuing a personal hearing notice, and the petitioner has an available appeal remedy under Section 107 of the GST Act, 2017, which they failed to avail before approaching the High Court.