Tvl Jm Medicals vs. The State Tax Officer

Facts

The petitioner, TVL JM Medicals, filed a writ petition before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court challenging an assessment order dated 19.08.2024, passed by the respondent, the State Tax Officer, Nagercoil, for the tax period 2019-2020. The petitioner contended that the assessment order was issued solely through the online portal without any physical service, thereby denying them an opportunity for a personal hearing and violating principles of natural justice. The respondent argued that there was a mismatch between GSTR-2A and GSTR-3B, and despite receiving notice, the petitioner neither filed objections nor appeared for a personal hearing. The respondent also pointed out that an appeal remedy was available under Section 107 of the TNGST Act, 2017.

Held

The Court noted the respondent's submission that the petitioner has an appeal remedy before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (ST) GST Appeal, Tirunelveli, under Section 107 of the TNGST Act, 2017. Consequently, the Court disposed of the writ petition with liberty granted to the petitioner to approach the appellate authority. The petitioner was permitted to raise all grounds raised in the writ petition before the appellate authority. The Court directed that if an appeal is filed within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, the appellate authority shall entertain the appeal and dispose of it in accordance with law within three months thereafter. The Court did not decide on the merits of the assessment order itself, focusing instead on the availability of the alternative remedy.

Key Issues

1. Whether the assessment order dated 19.08.2024, passed by the respondent for the tax period 2019-2020, is liable to be quashed for violation of principles of natural justice, specifically the lack of physical service of the order and opportunity for personal hearing, as argued by the petitioner? 2. Whether the petitioner has an effective alternative remedy by way of appeal under Section 107 of the TNGST Act, 2017, as contended by the respondent? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the assessment order was passed without proper service and personal hearing, thus violating natural justice principles. They sought to quash the order and direct a fresh assessment. Respondent's contention: The respondent argued that there was a GSTR-2A and GSTR-3B mismatch, and the petitioner failed to respond to notices or attend personal hearings. They asserted that an appeal under Section 107 of the TNGST Act, 2017, was the appropriate remedy, and the petitioner had directly approached the High Court instead.