M/S Advanced Root Knowledge Informatics Private Limited vs. The State Of Tripura And Ors.

Held

The Court held that the petitioner has an alternative statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107(1) of the TGST Act, which can be filed within 90 days of the order, with a condonable delay of up to 30 days under Section 107(4). The allegation of non-supply of documents, while a facet of natural justice, can be raised before the appellate authority along with all other grounds. The Court found that, on the face of it, the proceedings did not suffer from a violation of natural justice as a proper show-cause notice was issued, the petitioner's reply was considered, and a hearing was provided. Consequently, the Court was not inclined to entertain the writ petitions due to the availability of the alternative remedy and refrained from making observations on the merits of the case. The writ petitions were dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to approach the Appellate Authority.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Advanced Root Knowledge Informatics Private Limited, filed three writ petitions challenging orders passed by the Superintendent of State Tax under Section 73(1) of the Tripura State Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. These orders, dated February 11, 2025, imposed tax, interest, and penalty for financial years 2021-22, 2022-23, and 2023-24. The revenue alleged that the petitioner declared a lower tax liability than the scheduled rate of 18% for manpower supply services, based on a comparison of self-assessed returns (GSTR-3B, GSTR-1) and TDS data. The petitioner was issued a show-cause notice after scrutiny of returns and submission of replies, and the impugned orders were passed after considering the petitioner's response and providing a personal hearing.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petitions are maintainable on the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice due to non-supply of relied-upon documents, specifically the verification report of TDS deductions by recipients, thereby hindering the petitioner's ability to explain the mismatch in declared turnover and tax liability? (Question of law and fact, concerning principles of natural justice and procedural fairness under the GST Act). Petitioner's Contention: The impugned orders were passed without supplying crucial documents, violating natural justice. Had these documents been provided, the petitioner could have better explained the discrepancy in tax liability. The proceedings are thus contrary to the GST Act's scheme. Respondent's Contention: The petitioner has an alternative statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107(1) of the TGST Act. The proceedings were conducted after issuing a show-cause notice, considering the petitioner's reply, and providing an opportunity for hearing, thus no violation of natural justice occurred. The grounds raised can be addressed before the appellate authority.