Tvl Fine Pet vs. The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer Ii

Facts

The petitioner, Tvl. Fine Pet, represented by its partnership, filed a writ petition challenging an assessment order dated February 16, 2023, passed by the respondent, The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer - II, Tenkasi Assessment Circle, for the tax period 2019-20. The petitioner argued that the discrepancy between GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A, which formed the basis of the assessment, arose due to the selling dealer not reporting their turnover and that notices and orders were served through the department's web portal, violating principles of natural justice. The respondent contended that a show cause notice (DRC-01) was issued on September 2, 2022, and that the petitioner had an alternative 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 Deputy Commissioner (GST), Tirunelveli, 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 Court directed that if an appeal is filed within two weeks from the date of receipt of the order, the appellate authority shall entertain the appeal without considering the period of limitation. The appellate authority was further directed to dispose of the appeal in accordance with law within one month thereafter. The Court made no order as to costs. The issue of whether the assessment order was illegal due to service method or discrepancies was not directly decided by the High Court, as the matter was remitted to the appellate authority.

Key Issues

1. Whether the assessment order dated February 16, 2023, passed by the respondent is illegal and devoid of merits, violating principles of natural justice, particularly concerning the method of service of notices and orders and the discrepancy between GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A for the year 2019-20? (Question of law and mixed fact and law, turning on principles of natural justice and GST compliance provisions). Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the discrepancy between GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A for 2019-20 was due to the selling dealer's failure to report turnover and human errors at the reporting end. They also argued that service of all notices and orders solely through the department's web portal violated the principles of natural justice, rendering the impugned assessment order liable for setting aside. Respondent's arguments: The respondent argued that the assessment order was passed after issuing a show cause notice (DRC-01) to the petitioner and that the petitioner possessed an appeal remedy under Section 107 of the TNGST Act, 2017, before the Deputy Commissioner (GST), Tirunelveli. Therefore, the respondent submitted that there was no need for the High Court to interfere.