Tvl. Angayi Traders vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St) (Fac)

Facts

The petitioner, Tvl. Angayi Traders, filed a writ petition challenging an assessment order dated 12.02.2024, passed by the Commercial Tax Officer (second respondent), and a subsequent rectification rejection order dated 10.01.2025, passed by the Assistant Commissioner (ST) (FAC) (first respondent). The petitioner contended that the assessment order for the year 2018-2019 was passed without sufficient opportunity, violating principles of natural justice. Upon receiving the assessment order, the petitioner filed a rectification application on 10.05.2024, seeking to correct errors and provide evidence of ITC reversal and tax adjustments. This application was rejected, with the authority stating that no amendments or reversals were made in GSTR-3B, despite the petitioner claiming to have made such adjustments in September 2018. The respondents argued that show cause notices were issued and 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 appeal remedy under Section 107 of the TNGST Act, 2017, before the Deputy Commissioner (ST) GST Appeal. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of by granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the appellate authority. The petitioner was directed to raise all grounds raised in the writ petition before the appellate authority. The appellate authority was directed to entertain the appeal if filed within two weeks from the date of receipt of the order and dispose of it in accordance with law within one month thereafter. The respondents were directed to maintain the status quo prevailing as on the date of the order in the interregnum. The Court did not decide the merits of the petitioner's claims regarding the violation of natural justice or the erroneous rejection of the rectification application.

Key Issues

1. Whether the assessment order dated 12.02.2024, passed by the second respondent, is liable to be quashed for violation of the principles of natural justice due to lack of sufficient opportunity to the petitioner? (Question of law) 2. Whether the rectification rejection order dated 10.01.2025, passed by the first respondent, erroneously rejected the petitioner's rectification application without considering the submitted evidence of ITC reversal and tax adjustments? (Question of mixed law and fact) Petitioner's arguments: The assessment order was passed without providing sufficient opportunity, violating natural justice. The petitioner only became aware of the proceedings upon receiving the assessment order. The rectification application was wrongly rejected as the petitioner had indeed made the necessary amendments in GSTR-3B for September 2018. Respondents' arguments: Show cause notices were issued to the petitioner (DRC 01-A on 14.07.2023 and DRC-01 on 15.09.2023), indicating that an opportunity was provided. The petitioner has an alternative remedy of appeal before the Deputy Commissioner (ST) GST Appeal under Section 107 of the TNGST Act, 2017, and should have availed it instead of approaching the High Court directly.