M/S. Royal Phoenix Motors Private Limited vs. The State Tax Officer

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Royal Phoenix Motors Private Limited, filed a writ petition challenging an assessment order dated 29.04.2024, passed by the respondent, the State Tax Officer, for the assessment year 2018-2019. The petitioner also challenged consequential proceedings dated 10.01.2025. The petitioner contended that the assessment order was passed without providing sufficient opportunity, violating principles of natural justice. Furthermore, a rectification application filed by the petitioner on 27.07.2024 was rejected on 10.01.2025 without a personal hearing. The respondent argued that a show cause notice was issued on 18.01.2024 and that the petitioner had an alternative appeal remedy under Section 107 of the GST Act, 2017.

Held

The Court noted the submission by the learned Government Advocate that the petitioner has an appeal remedy before the Deputy Commissioner (GST), Madurai and Tirunelveli, under Section 107 of the GST Act, 2017. Consequently, the Court disposed of the writ petition, 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 it 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. Pending disposal of the appeal, the respondent was directed to maintain the status quo prevailing as on the date of the order. The Court did not decide on the merits of the petitioner's grounds regarding the violation of natural justice or the validity of the assessment order.

Key Issues

1. Whether the assessment order dated 29.04.2024 and consequential proceedings dated 10.01.2025, passed by the respondent, are illegal, arbitrary, and without jurisdiction due to violation of principles of natural justice, specifically the lack of sufficient opportunity for the petitioner? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the assessment order was passed without providing adequate opportunity to present their case, thus violating the principles of natural justice. They also contended that their rectification application was rejected without a personal hearing. The petitioner sought to quash the impugned orders and requested a fresh assessment after affording sufficient opportunity. Respondent's arguments: The respondent argued that a show cause notice (DRC-01) was issued to the petitioner on 18.01.2024, and therefore, the assessment order was valid. The respondent also pointed out that the petitioner has an alternative statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the GST Act, 2017, and that the petitioner had approached the High Court directly without availing this remedy.