M/S. A K Constructions 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 challenging an assessment order dated 26.07.2024, passed by the respondent, The Assistant Commissioner (ST), Sivakasi I Assessment Circle. The assessment order was for the assessment year 2022-2023. The petitioner contended that the assessment order, though dated 26.07.2024, was digitally signed on 11.09.2024, creating ambiguity regarding its upload date. Furthermore, the dates for personal hearings mentioned in the order (05.08.2024 and 14.08.2024) preceded the digital signing date, rendering the order illegal and arbitrary. The respondent submitted that the assessment order was based on a discrepancy between GSTR-7 and GSTR-3B for December 2022, leading to a tax demand of Rs.1,45,372/-.

Held

The Court acknowledged the respondent's submission 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. Consequently, the Court disposed of the writ petition by granting the petitioner liberty to approach the appellate authority. The Court directed that if the petitioner files an appeal within two weeks from the date of receiving a copy of the order, the appellate authority shall entertain the appeal and dispose of it in accordance with the law within three months thereafter. The Court also ordered that the status quo prevailing as on the date of the order shall be maintained in the interregnum. The Court did not decide on the merits of the petitioner's grounds regarding the alleged illegality and arbitrariness of the assessment order, as it was remanding the matter to the appellate authority.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned assessment order dated 26.07.2024, digitally signed on 11.09.2024, with hearing dates preceding the digital signature, is liable to be quashed as illegal, arbitrary, and without jurisdiction, as argued by the petitioner? 2. Whether the petitioner has an alternative statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the TNGST Act, 2017, against the impugned assessment order, as contended by the respondent? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the assessment order was fundamentally flawed due to the discrepancy between its dated and digitally signed dates, and the hearing dates falling before the digital signature, rendering it void. They sought to quash the order and for a fresh assessment after affording sufficient opportunity. Respondent's arguments: The respondent argued that the assessment order was passed due to a mismatch in GST returns for December 2022, resulting in a tax demand of Rs.1,45,372/-. They further contended that the petitioner possessed an effective alternative remedy by way of an appeal before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (ST) GST Appeal, Tirunelveli, under Section 107 of the TNGST Act, 2017, and therefore, the writ petition was not maintainable.