M/S. Thangam Endo Supply Materials vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer Ii
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, M/s. Thangam Endo Supply Materials, represented by its Proprietrix S. Thangam, filed a writ petition challenging an assessment order dated 20.06.2023, issued by the Deputy State Tax Officer – II, for the year 2020-2021. The petitioner contended that due to ill-health and reliance on a part-time accountant who failed to ensure compliance, she was unable to participate in the adjudication proceedings, leading to an ex parte order. The respondent argued that the order was passed after issuing a show cause notice and a personal hearing notice, and that the petitioner had an alternative appellate remedy under Section 107 of the GST Act, 2017.
Held
The Court noted the submission by the learned Government Advocate that the petitioner has an appellate remedy before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeal), Madurai, under Section 107 of the GST Act, 2017. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of by granting the petitioner liberty to approach 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, it shall be entertained by the appellate authority without reference to the period of limitation. The appellate authority was further directed to dispose of the appeal in accordance with law within three months thereafter. The Court made no order as to costs.
Key Issues
1. Whether the assessment order dated 20.06.2023, issued by the Deputy State Tax Officer – II, is liable to be quashed for want of jurisdiction and violation of statutory provisions, as contended by the petitioner? The petitioner argued that the ex parte assessment order was passed without proper opportunity to participate in the proceedings due to her ill-health and the failure of her accountant, and that the respondent acted without jurisdiction. The respondent contended that the assessment order was passed after due process, including a show cause notice and a personal hearing notice, and that the petitioner had an available statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the GST Act, 2017, which she failed to avail before approaching the High Court.
Sections Cited
Section 107
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Before: and
This Writ Petition is filed challenging the assessment order passed by the respondent, dated 20.06.2023, for the year 2020-2021. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that due to ill- health and requiring periodic treatment for her health ailments, the petitioner was unable to fully concentrate on business activities. The petitioner was under the bona fide belief that the part-time accountant would ensure compliance with all statutory requirements. However, the accountant failed to do so. Hence, the petitioner was unable to participate in the adjudication proceedings, which resulted in the issuance of the ex parte impugned order.
Mr.J.K.Jayaselan, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent submits that the impugned assessment order has been passed after issuing show cause notice to the petitioner on 09.11.2022, followed by personal hearing notice, dated 02.03.2023 and therefore, there is no need to interfere with the impugned order. He further submits that the petitioner is having an appeal remedy before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeal), Madurai, under Section 107 ____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis of the GST Act, 2017. However, without invoking the appeal remedy, the petitioner has straightaway approached this Court.
Recording the submission made by the learned Government Advocate that the petitioner is having an appeal remedy before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeal), Madurai, under Section 107 of the GST Act, 2017, this writ petition is disposed of, with liberty to the petitioner to approach the appellate authority and raise all the grounds raised in this writ petition in the appeal. In the event, if any appeal is filed within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, the same shall be entertained by the appellate authority without reference to the period of limitation and disposed of in accordance with law, within a period of three months thereafter. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. NCC : Yes / No
2025 Index : Yes / No (1/2) smn2 ____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis To:- The Deputy State Tax Officer – II, Commercial Tax Building, Bodinayakanur. ____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis VIVEK KUMAR SINGH
, J.
smn2
2025 (1/2) ____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Reproduced from the public record of the Madras High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.