M/S. Mps Pari Construction vs. The State Tax Officer V

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. MPS Pari Construction, filed a writ petition before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court challenging an assessment order dated 05.06.2024 passed by the first respondent, the State Tax Officer – V, and a summary order dated 05.06.2024 passed by the second respondent, the Commercial Tax Officer, Trichy. The petitioner contended that these orders were passed for the assessment year 2022-2023 without providing sufficient opportunity for a personal hearing, thus violating the principles of natural justice. The petitioner sought to quash these orders and requested a fresh assessment with an opportunity for a personal hearing. The respondents argued that a show cause notice in Form GST DRC-01 was issued on 16.03.2024 and that the petitioner had an alternative appeal remedy under Section 107 of the GST Act, 2017.

Held

The Court noted the submission made by the learned Government Advocate for the respondents that the petitioner has an available appeal remedy before the Deputy Commissioner (ST) (GST Appeal), Tiruchirapalli, under Section 107 of the GST Act, 2017. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of with liberty granted to the petitioner to approach the appellate authority. The Court directed that if the appeal is filed within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, the appellate authority shall entertain the appeal without reference to the period of limitation. The appellate authority was further directed to dispose of the appeal in accordance with law within a period of three months thereafter. The Court made no order as to costs. The issue of whether the assessment order was in violation of natural justice was not directly decided by the High Court, as it directed the petitioner to pursue the statutory appeal remedy.

Key Issues

1. Whether the assessment order and summary order passed by the respondents are illegal and in gross violation of the principles of natural justice due to the lack of a personal hearing for the petitioner, as contemplated under the GST Act, 2017? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the assessment order for the year 2022-2023 was passed without providing sufficient opportunity, violating the principles of natural justice, and therefore, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside. The petitioner sought a direction to re-do the assessment after providing an opportunity for a personal hearing. Respondents' Contention: The respondents submitted that a show cause notice in DRC 01 was issued to the petitioner on 16.03.2024, and therefore, there was no need to interfere with the impugned order. They further contended that the petitioner has an appeal remedy before the Deputy Commissioner (ST) (GST Appeal), Tiruchirapalli, under Section 107 of the GST Act, 2017, and that the petitioner should have availed this remedy instead of approaching the High Court directly.