Ss Steel INDIA Corporation vs. The Deputy Commissioner (State Tax) (GST)

Facts

The petitioner, SS Steel India Corporation, filed a writ petition before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court challenging an Assessment Order passed under Section 73 of the SGST Act by the Assistant Commissioner (State Tax) (GST), Sivakasi-III Assessment Circle, dated 01.12.2022. The petitioner contended that despite a previous court direction to furnish a copy of the Assessment Order, the respondents had failed to do so. This failure prevented the petitioner from filing a statutory appeal under Section 107 of the GST Act. The petitioner had made several written requests for the order copy, which remained unfulfilled, neither posted online nor served manually.

Held

The Court acknowledged the petitioner's grievance that the Assessment Order had not been furnished, preventing them from filing a statutory appeal. The Court noted the petitioner's repeated attempts to obtain the order copy. While the judgment does not explicitly state whether the respondents had previously been directed to furnish the order, it proceeds on the basis that the order was not yet provided to the petitioner. The Court held that the petitioner should be granted liberty to file a statutory appeal within 30 days of receiving the Assessment Order. Consequently, the respondents were directed to furnish the copy of the Assessment Order within 30 days of receiving a copy of this Court's order. The petitioner was then given a further 30 days to file the statutory appeal, subject to complying with the mandatory requirements of Section 107 of the GST Act. The issue of the validity of the Assessment Order itself was not decided.

Key Issues

1. Whether the respondents have complied with the court's direction to furnish a copy of the Assessment Order to the petitioner, and if not, what is the consequence? (Question of fact and law, turning on procedural compliance and the right to statutory appeal). Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the respondents failed to provide a copy of the Assessment Order, despite a prior court directive. This non-compliance hindered their ability to file a statutory appeal under Section 107 of the GST Act. They emphasized their repeated requests for the order and the lack of service either manually or through the web portal. Revenue's arguments: The judgment records that the learned Government Advocate appeared for the respondents, but no specific arguments were detailed in the judgment regarding their defense or contentions against the petitioner's claims. The judgment notes that the court considered the arguments of both sides.