M/S.Hotel Sivas Regency vs. The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer (St)

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Hotel Sivas Regency, represented by its Proprietrix, filed a writ petition challenging an assessment order dated August 22, 2024, issued by the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer (ST), Theni I Assessment Circle. The petitioner contended that due to ill-health and reliance on a part-time accountant who failed to ensure compliance, they were unable to participate in the adjudication proceedings, leading to an ex parte order. The respondent revenue authority argued that a show cause notice was issued on May 21, 2024, and the petitioner has an alternative appeal remedy under Section 107 of the GST Act, 2017, before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeal). The petitioner had directly approached the High Court without exhausting this remedy.

Held

The Court noted the submission by the learned Government Advocate that the petitioner has an available appeal remedy before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeal), Madurai and Tirunelveli, under Section 107 of the GST Act, 2017. Consequently, the Court disposed of the writ petition by granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the appellate authority. The petitioner is 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 a copy of this order, the appellate authority shall entertain it and dispose of it in accordance with law within two months thereafter. No order as to costs was made.

Key Issues

1. Whether the High Court should entertain a writ petition when an alternative statutory remedy of appeal is available to the petitioner under Section 107 of the GST Act, 2017? The petitioner argued that the impugned order was passed without jurisdiction and in violation of statutory provisions, implying that the assessment proceedings themselves were flawed and thus the alternative remedy might not be efficacious. The petitioner also cited personal reasons, including ill-health and reliance on an accountant, as grounds for their inability to participate in the adjudication, suggesting a procedural unfairness that warranted direct High Court intervention. The respondent revenue authority contended that the impugned order was passed after issuing a show cause notice and that the petitioner possesses a clear statutory right of appeal under Section 107 of the GST Act, 2017. Therefore, the respondent argued that the petitioner should have first availed this appellate remedy before approaching the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.