Tvl. Ashok Trading Company vs. The State Tax Officer

Facts

The petitioner, Tvl. Ashok Trading Company, represented by its partner Mahendra N Patel, filed two writ petitions before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court. These petitions challenged proceedings issued by the respondent, the State Tax Officer, Inspection Cell-III, Trichy. The proceedings pertained to the tax periods 2018-2019 and 2019-2020. The petitioner sought to quash these proceedings, alleging they were invalid and not in accordance with the provisions of the Goods and Services Tax Act. They also prayed for a direction to the respondent to pass an appropriate order after issuing a proper show cause notice in GST DRC-01.

Held

The Court held that the writ petitions were not maintainable. The reasoning was based on the existence of an alternate statutory remedy available to the petitioner. Specifically, the Court noted that the petitioner could file an appeal before the Appellate Commissioner under Section 107 of the Goods and Services Tax Act. Therefore, the Court dismissed the writ petitions. The operative direction was to grant the petitioner liberty to pursue their remedy before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority was directed to consider and dispose of the petitioner's appeal in accordance with the law, provided such an appeal was filed within thirty days from the date of receipt of the order. No costs were imposed. The connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petitions are maintainable before this Court, given the existence of an alternate remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the Goods and Services Tax Act. The petitioner argued that the impugned proceedings were invalid and not in accordance with the Act, implying a fundamental flaw that might warrant interference under Article 226. They sought to quash the proceedings and have a proper show cause notice issued. The petitioner's counsel appeared, but the specific arguments beyond the prayer are not detailed in the judgment. The respondent, represented by the Additional Government Pleader, contended that the petitioner has an alternate statutory remedy by way of an appeal before the Appellate Commissioner under Section 107 of the Goods and Services Tax Act. The respondent's argument focused on the availability of this alternative recourse.