M/S. Tarun Tyres vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Tarun Tyres, represented by its Proprietrix, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 25.09.2023, issued by the Deputy State Tax Officer - 2, Madurai Rural (South) Assessment Circle. 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 adjudication proceedings, leading to an ex parte order. The respondent argued that the order was passed after issuing a show cause notice and personal hearing notices, 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 that the petitioner has an appeal remedy before the Deputy Commissioner (ST) (GST Appeal), Madurai, under Section 107 of the GST Act, 2017. Consequently, the Court disposed of the writ petition by granting the petitioner liberty to approach the appellate authority. The petitioner was permitted to raise all grounds 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 receipt of the 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. No order as to costs was made. The connected miscellaneous petition was closed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned assessment order, issued ex parte, is liable to be quashed for lack of jurisdiction and violation of statutory provisions, as argued by the petitioner? 2. Whether the petitioner's failure to participate in the adjudication proceedings, attributed to ill-health and accountant's negligence, justifies quashing the order, or if the existence of an appeal remedy under Section 107 of the GST Act, 2017, is the appropriate recourse, as contended by the respondent? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the ex parte order was passed without jurisdiction and in clear violation of statutory provisions. The inability to participate was due to bona fide reasons of ill-health and a trusted accountant's failure to manage compliance, leading to an ex parte order. The petitioner sought to quash the order directly through a writ petition. Respondent's arguments: The respondent contended that the impugned order was passed after due process, including a show cause notice and multiple personal hearing notices. The respondent emphasized that the petitioner possessed an alternative statutory remedy of appeal before the Deputy Commissioner (ST) (GST Appeal) under Section 107 of the GST Act, 2017, and had approached the High Court without exhausting this remedy.