Ramasamy Venkatachalam vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer -1

Facts

The petitioner, Ramasamy Venkatachalam, a government contractor, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 06.09.2024, issued by the Deputy State Tax Officer -1, Pudukottai. The petitioner contended that due to ill-health and requiring periodic treatment, he was unable to concentrate on his business and relied on a part-time accountant for statutory compliance. The accountant's failure led to the petitioner being unable to participate in adjudication proceedings, resulting in an ex parte order. The respondent argued that a show cause notice was issued on 23.05.2024 and that the petitioner has an alternative appeal remedy under Section 107 of the GST Act, 2017, before the appellate Deputy Commissioner (ST), Trichy.

Held

The Court noted the submission by the learned Government Advocate that the petitioner has an appeal remedy before the Deputy Commissioner (ST), Trichy, under Section 107 of the GST Act, 2017. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of by granting the petitioner liberty to approach the appellate authority. The Court directed that all grounds raised in the writ petition could be presented in the appeal. The appellate authority was instructed to entertain the appeal if filed within two weeks from the date of receipt of the order, without insisting on the usual limitation period, and to dispose of the appeal in accordance with law within one month thereafter. No order as to costs was made.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order, passed ex parte, is liable to be quashed due to the petitioner's inability to participate in adjudication proceedings owing to ill-health and reliance on an accountant who failed to ensure compliance? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that his absence from adjudication proceedings was due to bona fide reasons of ill-health and the failure of his part-time accountant to manage statutory compliances, leading to an ex parte order that should be set aside. Respondent's contention: The respondent argued that the impugned order was passed after issuing a show cause notice and that the petitioner has an available statutory appeal remedy under Section 107 of the GST Act, 2017, and should have availed it instead of approaching the High Court directly.