Tvl. Ginu Construction vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Tvl. Ginu Construction, represented by its Proprietor, S.V. Chandra Mohan, filed a writ petition before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court. The petition challenged an assessment order dated 20.08.2024, passed by the respondent, The Assistant Commissioner (ST), Tuticorin III Assessment Circle. The assessment order pertained to the tax period of 2019-2020. The petitioner contended that the assessment order was passed without providing sufficient opportunity, violating the principles of natural justice. The respondent argued that a show cause notice in DRC 01 was issued on 31.05.2024, and the petitioner had an alternative appeal remedy under Section 107 of the TNGST Act, 2017.
Held
The Court noted the submission by the learned Government Advocate for the respondent that the petitioner possesses an appeal remedy before the Deputy Commissioner (GST Appeal), Madurai, under Section 107 of the TNGST Act, 2017. Consequently, the Court disposed of the writ petition with liberty granted to the petitioner to approach the appellate authority. The petitioner was permitted to raise all grounds raised in the writ petition before the appellate authority. The Court further directed that if an appeal is filed within two weeks from the date of receipt of the order, the appellate authority shall entertain the appeal without reference to the period of limitation and dispose of it in accordance with law within two months thereafter. No order as to costs was made.
Key Issues
1. Whether the assessment order dated 20.08.2024, passed by the respondent for the period 2019-2020, is illegal and in gross violation of the Principles of Natural Justice, as contended by the petitioner? Petitioner's contention: The assessment order was passed without providing sufficient opportunity to the petitioner, thereby violating the principles of natural justice. Respondent's contention: A show cause notice in DRC 01 was issued to the petitioner on 31.05.2024, and the petitioner has an alternative statutory remedy of appeal before the Deputy Commissioner (GST Appeal), Madurai, under Section 107 of the TNGST Act, 2017, and therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable.
Sections Cited
Section 107
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Before: and
This writ petition is filed as against the assessment order passed by the respondent herein for the assessment year 2019-2020, dated 20.08.2024. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the orders of assessment for the year 2019-2020 have been passed without providing sufficient opportunity to the petitioner, which according to the petitioner, is in violation to the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the order impugned in this writ petition, is liable to be set aside.
Mr.J.K.Jayaselan, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent submits that the impugned assessment order has been passed after issuing show cause notice in DRC 01 to the petitioner on 31.05.2024 and therefore, there is no need to interfere with the impugned order. He further submits that the petitioner is having an appeal remedy before the Deputy Commissioner (GST Appeal), Madurai, under Section 107 of the TNGST Act, ____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2017. However, without invoking the appeal remedy, the petitioner has straightaway approached this Court.
Recording the submission made by the learned Government Advocate that the petitioner is having an appeal remedy before the Deputy Commissioner (GST Appeal), Madurai, under Section 107 of the TNGST Act, 2017, this writ petition is disposed of, with liberty to the petitioner to approach the appellate authority and raise all the grounds raised in this writ petition in the appeal. In the event, if any appeal is filed within a period of 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 and dispose of the same in accordance with law, within a period of two months thereafter. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. NCC : Yes / No
2025 Index : Yes / No smn2 ____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis To:- The Assistant Commissioner (ST), Tuticorin III Assessment Circle, Tuticorin. ____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis VIVEK KUMAR SINGH
, J.
smn2
2025 ____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Reproduced from the public record of the Madras High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.