M/S.A.K.Construction vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)

Facts

The petitioner, M/s.A.K.Constructions, represented by its Proprietor K.Kaleeswaran Pandi, filed a writ petition before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court. The petition challenged an assessment order dated 28.08.2024, passed by the respondent, The Assistant Commissioner (ST), Sivakasi I Assessment Circle. This order levied a late fee of Rs. 2,48,200/- for the assessment year 2019-2020, allegedly for non-filing of GSTR-9 and GSTR-9C. The petitioner contended that the order was passed without issuing any notice, violating the principles of natural justice. The respondent acknowledged the petitioner's failure to file the annual return reconciliation statement and pointed out the availability of an appeal remedy.

Held

The Court acknowledged the submissions made by the learned Government Advocate for the respondent, particularly regarding the availability of an appeal remedy under Section 107 of the TNGST Act, 2017, before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (ST) GST Appeal, Tirunelveli. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of by granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the appellate authority. The Court directed that if an appeal is filed within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order, the appellate authority shall entertain the appeal and dispose of it in accordance with law within three months thereafter. Pending the appeal, the respondents were directed to maintain the status quo prevailing as on the date of the order. No order as to costs was made. The issue of the legality and jurisdiction of the impugned order, and the alleged violation of natural justice, were not directly decided by the High Court but were left to be adjudicated by the appellate authority.

Key Issues

1. Whether the assessment order dated 28.08.2024, levying a late fee of Rs. 2,48,200/- for non-filing of GSTR-9 and GSTR-9C for the assessment year 2019-2020, is illegal, arbitrary, and without jurisdiction, as argued by the petitioner? 2. Whether the principles of natural justice were violated by the respondent passing the impugned order without issuing any prior notice to the petitioner, as contended by the petitioner? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the impugned order was passed without issuing any notice, thereby violating the principles of natural justice. They sought to quash the order and direct the respondent to pass a fresh order after affording sufficient opportunity. Respondent's Arguments: The respondent submitted that the petitioner failed to file the annual return reconciliation statement for the assessment year 2019-2020. They further contended that the petitioner has an alternative statutory remedy of appeal before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (ST) GST Appeal, Tirunelveli, under Section 107 of the TNGST Act, 2017, and that the petitioner directly approached the High Court instead of availing this remedy.