C Selvaraj vs. The Assistant Commissioner

Facts

The petitioner, C. Selvaraj, filed a writ petition before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court challenging an Order-In-Original dated 09.08.2024, passed by the Assistant Commissioner of GST and Central Excise, Karur Division. The impugned order pertains to the financial years 2017-18 to 2019-20. The petitioner contended that the assessment proceedings were vitiated by the practice of bunching multiple assessment years into a single order, which allegedly violated the principles of natural justice by creating confusion in calculating discrepancies. The respondent revenue authority argued that the petitioner had an alternative statutory remedy of appeal before the Additional Commissioner of Central Tax and Central Excise (Appeals), Trichy, under Section 107 of the GST Act, 2017.

Held

The Court noted the submission made by the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent that the petitioner has an available statutory appeal remedy under Section 107 of the GST Act, 2017, before the Additional/Commissioner of Central Tax and Central Excise (Appeals), Trichy. Consequently, the Court disposed of the writ petition by granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the appellate authority. The petitioner was permitted to raise all grounds previously 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 receiving a copy of the order, the appellate authority shall entertain the appeal without considering the period of limitation and shall dispose of it in accordance with the law within three months thereafter. No costs were awarded.

Key Issues

1. Whether the assessment proceedings are vitiated due to the "bunching" of assessment orders for multiple financial years (2017-18 to 2019-20) into a single Order-In-Original, thereby violating the principles of natural justice? (Question of law and fact, concerning principles of natural justice and procedural fairness). Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that combining multiple years in a single assessment order creates unnecessary confusion regarding the calculation of alleged discrepancies, which contravenes the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the impugned order should be quashed. Respondent's contention: The respondent contended that the petitioner possesses an efficacious alternative remedy by way of an appeal under Section 107 of the GST Act, 2017, before the Additional Commissioner of Central Tax and Central Excise (Appeals), Trichy. The respondent highlighted that the petitioner had directly approached the High Court without availing this statutory remedy.