M/S.Vasantham Catering vs. The State Tax Officer (St)

Facts

The petitioner, M/s.Vasantham Catering, represented by its Proprietor M.Mohamed Akbar, filed a writ petition before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court challenging an assessment order dated 22.04.2024, issued by the respondent, The State Tax Officer (ST), Ponmalai Assessment Circle. The petitioner stated that due to ill-health and the failure of a part-time accountant to ensure statutory compliance, they were unable to participate in the adjudication proceedings, leading to an ex parte order. The respondent argued that a show cause notice and personal hearing notices were issued, and the petitioner had a statutory appeal remedy under Section 107 of the GST Act, 2017, before the appellate Deputy Commissioner (ST) (GST), Trichy.

Held

The Court noted the submission by the learned Government Advocate that the petitioner has an appeal remedy before the appellate Deputy Commissioner (ST) (GST), Trichy, under Section 107 of the GST Act, 2017. Consequently, the Court disposed of the writ petition with liberty to the petitioner 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, it shall be entertained by the appellate authority without reference to the period of limitation. The appellate authority is to dispose of the appeal in accordance with law within three months thereafter. No order as to costs was made.

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, considering the petitioner's inability to participate due to ill-health and accountant's failure? (Question of mixed law and fact, concerning principles of natural justice and procedural compliance). Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the ex parte order was passed without proper participation due to personal health issues and the negligence of their accountant, leading to a violation of statutory provisions and lack of jurisdiction. They sought to quash the order on these grounds. Respondent's contention: The respondent contended that the assessment order was passed after issuing a show cause notice and personal hearing notices, and therefore, the Court should not interfere. They further argued that the petitioner has an alternative statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the GST Act, 2017, and has approached the High Court directly without availing it.