G.Alexander vs. The State Tax Officer

Facts

The petitioner, G. Alexander, a Civil Works Contractor, filed a writ petition before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court challenging an assessment order dated September 10, 2024, issued by the respondent, The State Tax Officer, for the assessment year 2018-2019. The petitioner contended that the assessment order was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice, as they were not afforded sufficient opportunity to be heard. The respondent argued that a show cause notice was issued on July 20, 2024, followed by reminders, and that the petitioner had an alternative remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the GST Act, 2017. The petitioner had approached the High Court directly without availing this remedy.

Held

The Court acknowledged the submission by the learned Government Advocate that the petitioner has an appeal remedy under Section 107 of the GST Act, 2017, before the appellate Deputy Commissioner (GST Appeals) (State Tax), Madurai and Tirunelveli. Consequently, the Court disposed of the writ petition, 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 the order, the appellate authority shall entertain it without reference to the period of limitation. The appellate authority was also directed to dispose of the appeal in accordance with law within four months thereafter. The Court ordered that the status quo prevailing as on the date of the order shall be maintained in the interregnum. No order as to costs was made.

Key Issues

1. Whether the assessment order dated September 10, 2024, passed by the respondent for the assessment year 2018-2019 is illegal, arbitrary, and in violation of the principles of natural justice, as contended by the petitioner? 2. Whether the petitioner has an effective alternative remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the GST Act, 2017, as argued by the respondent? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the assessment order was passed without providing sufficient opportunity to be heard, thus violating the principles of natural justice, and sought to quash the order and direct a fresh assessment. The petitioner did not rely on any specific provisions, circulars, or precedents in the provided text. Respondent's Contention: The respondent contended that the assessment order was passed after issuing a show cause notice and subsequent reminders, and therefore, there was no need for interference. The respondent further argued that the petitioner has an appeal remedy under Section 107 of the GST Act, 2017, and should have availed it instead of directly approaching the High Court.