M/S. Arumugam Modern Rice Mill vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Arumugam Modern Rice Mill, filed a writ petition challenging an assessment order dated 29.12.2023, passed by the Assistant Commissioner (ST), Tuticorin III Assessment Circle, for the period 2017-2018. The petitioner contended that the order was passed in violation of natural justice, as their replies were not considered. The petitioner had also filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner (CT), GST Appeal, Palayamkottai, which was admitted. Subsequently, due to a clerical error by the petitioner's accountant, an application for withdrawal of the appeal was mistakenly filed instead of an adjournment request. The petitioner stated this mistake was made without their knowledge, and the second respondent had not yet considered the application. The respondents pointed out that a further remedy of appeal was available under Rule 109-C of the TNGST Rules, 2017.

Held

The Court noted the submission by the learned Government Advocate that the petitioner possesses a further remedy of appeal before the second respondent under Rule 109-C of the TNGST Rules, 2017. Consequently, the Court disposed of the writ petition, granting the petitioner liberty to approach the second respondent. The petitioner was permitted to raise all grounds raised in the writ petition before the appellate authority. The Court directed that if an appeal is filed within 15 days from the date of the order, the second respondent shall entertain it without insisting on the limitation period. The appeal is to be disposed of in accordance with law within three months thereafter. The Court did not decide on the merits of the petitioner's claims regarding the illegality, lack of jurisdiction, or violation of natural justice in the assessment order, as the matter was disposed of on the availability of an alternative remedy.

Key Issues

1. Whether the assessment order dated 29.12.2023, passed by the first respondent for the period 2017-2018, is illegal, without jurisdiction (time-barred), and in gross violation of the Principles of Natural Justice, thereby warranting quashing? 2. Whether the petitioner should be directed to pursue the alternative remedy of appeal before the second respondent? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the impugned order was passed in gross violation of the principles of natural justice, as their submitted replies were not considered. They also contended that the order was illegal and without jurisdiction, implying it might be time-barred. The petitioner highlighted the mistaken filing of a withdrawal application instead of an adjournment application before the appellate authority and stated that this mistake was made without their knowledge. Respondents' Arguments: The respondents argued that the petitioner had an alternative remedy of appeal available under Rule 109-C of the TNGST Rules, 2017, against the order passed by the first respondent. They submitted that the petitioner had already filed an appeal before the second respondent and subsequently filed an application for withdrawal of that appeal.