Adityarai Infrastructure Private Limited Represented By Its Director Mr Prahlad Rai Sharma vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer I Formerly Known As Deputy Commercial Tax Officer - I

Facts

Adityarai Infrastructure Private Limited (Petitioner) filed a writ petition challenging an assessment order dated 12.08.2024 and a consequential rejection order dated 20.03.2025, both passed by the Deputy State Tax Officer I (Respondent). The Petitioner contended that the assessment order was passed solely through the online portal without physical service, denying them an opportunity for a personal hearing and thus 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 the Petitioner had an alternative appeal remedy under Section 107 of the TNGST Act, 2017, before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (ST) GST Appeal, Tiruchirappalli.

Held

The Court noted the submission by the learned Government Advocate that the petitioner has an 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 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 made no order as to costs. The connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the assessment order passed solely through the online portal without physical service to the petitioner violates the principles of natural justice, specifically the right to a personal hearing, thereby rendering the order arbitrary and illegal? (Question of law and fact, concerning principles of natural justice and procedural fairness). Petitioner's arguments: The Petitioner argued that the lack of physical service of the assessment order and the consequent denial of a personal hearing constituted a violation of the principles of natural justice, making the impugned orders illegal and arbitrary. They contended that the online-only issuance of the order prevented them from effectively responding or presenting their case. Respondent's arguments: The Respondent contended that there was a mismatch between GSTR-2A and GSTR-3B. They further argued that the Petitioner, despite receiving notice, failed to file objections or appear for a personal hearing. The Respondent highlighted that the Petitioner possessed an alternative statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the TNGST Act, 2017, and had directly approached the High Court instead of availing this remedy.