Tvl Bro INDIA Beverages vs. The Assistant Commissioner(St)(Fac)

Facts

The petitioner, Tvl. Bro India Beverages, filed a writ petition challenging an assessment order dated February 7, 2023, passed by the Assistant Commissioner (ST) (FAC), Tenkasi Assessment Circle, for the tax period 2018-19. The petitioner contended that the discrepancy between GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A, which formed the basis of the assessment, arose due to the selling dealer not reporting their turnover. The petitioner also argued that notices and orders served solely through the department's web portal violated principles of natural justice. The respondent argued that a show cause notice (DRC-01) was issued on January 31, 2022, and that the petitioner had an alternative appellate 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 available appeal remedy before the Deputy Commissioner (GST Appeals) (State Tax), Madurai, under Section 107 of the GST Act, 2017. Consequently, the Court disposed of the writ petition, granting the petitioner liberty to approach the appellate authority. The petitioner was directed to raise all grounds raised in the writ petition before the appellate authority. The appellate authority was directed to entertain the appeal if filed within two weeks from the date of receipt of the order, without reference to the period of limitation, 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 assessment order passed by the respondent is illegal and devoid of merits due to alleged violations of natural justice and discrepancies in tax reporting for the year 2018-19, as argued by the petitioner? 2. Whether the petitioner has an effective alternative remedy of appeal before the Deputy Commissioner (GST Appeals) (State Tax), Madurai, as submitted by the respondent? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the assessment order should be quashed because the discrepancy between GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A was due to the selling dealer's failure to report turnover, and that service of notices and orders only through the web portal violated principles of natural justice. Respondent's arguments: The respondent contended that the assessment order was passed after issuing a show cause notice and that the petitioner possessed an appeal remedy under Section 107 of the GST Act, 2017, and should have availed it instead of approaching the High Court directly.