V S Veera Paints vs. The State Tax Officer

Facts

The petitioner, M/s.V.S. Veera Paints, represented by its Proprietor, Tmt.Thangam Muthulakshmi, filed a writ petition before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court. The petition challenged an assessment order and its summary order in Form GST DRC-07, dated 22.08.2024, passed by the respondent, The State Tax Officer, Madurai Rural West Circle, for the tax period 2019-2020. The petitioner contended that the order was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice due to insufficient opportunity. The respondent argued that a show cause notice in DRC 01 was issued on 21.05.2024, and the petitioner had an alternative appellate remedy under Section 107 of the GST Act, 2017.

Held

The Court noted the submission made by the learned Government Advocate for the respondent that the petitioner has an available appellate remedy under Section 107 of the GST Act, 2017, before the Deputy Commissioner (ST) (GST Appeal), Madurai and Tirunelveli. Consequently, the Court disposed of the writ petition by granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the appellate authority. The Court directed that if the appeal is filed within two weeks from the date of receipt of the order, it shall be entertained by the appellate authority without insisting on the limitation period. The appellate authority was further directed to dispose of the appeal in accordance with law within three months thereafter. The Court made no order as to costs. No specific finding was given on the merits of the petitioner's claim regarding the violation of natural justice.

Key Issues

1. Whether the assessment order dated 22.08.2024, passed by the respondent for the tax period 2019-2020, is illegal and in gross violation of the principles of natural justice, as contended by the petitioner, specifically concerning the alleged lack of sufficient opportunity for a personal hearing? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the assessment order was passed without providing sufficient opportunity, thereby violating the principles of natural justice, and thus, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. Respondent's Arguments: The respondent contended that a show cause notice (DRC 01) was issued to the petitioner on 21.05.2024, and therefore, there was no need for the Court to interfere. The respondent further submitted that the petitioner possesses an alternative statutory remedy of appeal before the Deputy Commissioner (ST) (GST Appeal) under Section 107 of the GST Act, 2017, and that the petitioner has prematurely approached the High Court without exhausting this remedy.