M/S. Royal Gas Service vs. The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Royal Gas Service, filed two writ petitions before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court challenging assessment orders dated 08.08.2024 and 16.08.2024, passed by the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Kodaikanal Circle. These orders pertained to the tax period April 2019 to March 2020 (Financial Year 2019-2020). The petitioner contended that the assessment orders were passed in gross violation of the principles of natural justice, as they were not provided with sufficient opportunity, including a personal hearing. The respondent revenue authority argued that show cause notices (DRC-01) were issued on 29.05.2024 and 22.05.2024, and that the petitioner had an alternative statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the TNGST Act, 2017.

Held

The Court noted the submission by the learned Government Advocate that the petitioner has an appeal remedy before the appellate Deputy Commissioner (ST) Appeal (GST), Madurai, under Section 107 of the TNGST Act, 2017. Consequently, the Court disposed of the writ petitions by granting 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, 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 two months thereafter. The Court did not decide on the merits of the petitioner's claim regarding the violation of natural justice or the validity of the assessment orders, as the matter was remitted to the appellate authority.

Key Issues

1. Whether the assessment orders passed by the respondent for the tax period April 2019 - March 2020 are liable to be quashed for gross violation of the principles of natural justice, specifically the lack of a personal hearing, as contended by the petitioner? 2. Whether the petitioner has an effective alternative remedy under Section 107 of the TNGST Act, 2017, as argued by the respondent, which would preclude the High Court from entertaining the writ petitions directly? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the assessment orders were passed without providing sufficient opportunity, violating the principles of natural justice, and thus were liable to be set aside. They sought a direction to re-do the assessment after providing a personal hearing. Respondent's Arguments: The respondent contended that show cause notices were issued, and therefore, the principles of natural justice were not violated. They further argued that the petitioner had an available statutory appeal remedy under Section 107 of the TNGST Act, 2017, and should have availed it instead of approaching the High Court directly.