Tvl Aishuvharya Marketing vs. The State Tax Officer

Facts

The petitioner, TVL Aishuvharya Marketing, represented by its Partner, filed a writ petition challenging an assessment order dated 14.08.2024, passed by the respondent, The State Tax Officer, Woraiyur Assessment Circle, Trichy, for the assessment year 2019-2020. The petitioner contended that the assessment order was passed primarily due to a discrepancy between GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A without affording a personal hearing, violating principles of natural justice. The respondent argued that the petitioner was granted three personal hearings and that the amended credit note was filed beyond the due date. The respondent also pointed out that the petitioner has an appeal remedy under Section 107 of the TNGST Act, 2017.

Held

The Court noted the submission by the learned Government Advocate that the petitioner has an available appeal remedy before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (ST) GST Appeal, Tiruchirappalli, under Section 107 of the TNGST Act, 2017. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of by granting liberty 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 the order, the appellate authority shall entertain it and dispose of it in accordance with law within three months thereafter. No order as to costs was made.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned assessment order dated 14.08.2024, passed by the respondent for the assessment year 2019-2020, is liable to be quashed for violation of principles of natural justice due to the non-affordance of a proper personal hearing to the petitioner? (Question of law and fact, turning on principles of natural justice and procedural fairness under GST law). Petitioner's contention: The assessment order was passed without a proper personal hearing, violating natural justice. The discrepancy between GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A was due to a credit note amendment, and the assessment should have considered this. Respondent's contention: The petitioner was granted three personal hearings. The amended credit note was filed beyond the due date and is thus liable to be discarded. The petitioner has an alternative statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the TNGST Act, 2017, and should have availed it instead of approaching the High Court directly.