Tvl R R Textiles vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)

Facts

The petitioner, Tvl. R.R. Textiles, represented by its Proprietor R.Kannan, filed a writ petition seeking to quash an order dated 24.02.2025 passed by the Assistant Commissioner (ST), Thirumangalam Assessment Circle, Madurai. The petitioner contended that the order was illegal and in gross violation of the principles of natural justice. The respondent is the Assistant Commissioner (ST). The tax period in question is 2020-21, with a total demand of Rs. 1,39,938/-. A sum of Rs. 77,626/- had already been recovered from the petitioner. The writ petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Held

The Court noted that the petitioner had been afforded an opportunity of hearing before the impugned order was passed. However, considering that a significant portion of the demand (Rs. 77,626/- out of Rs. 1,39,938/-) had already been recovered, the Court was inclined to grant the petitioner liberty to file a statutory appeal before the Appellate Authority. The appeal is to be filed within fifteen days from the receipt of the order. The Appellate Authority is directed to entertain the appeal on merits, notwithstanding any limitation prescribed under Section 107 of the respective GST enactments. Furthermore, the bank account attached by the respondent shall be released forthwith, given the partial recovery. The Court made it clear that if the petitioner fails to file the appeal within the stipulated time, the respondent is at liberty to proceed as if the writ petition was dismissed in limine. The issue of whether the order was illegal or in violation of natural justice was not decided on merits, but the petitioner was provided an alternative remedy.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order dated 24.02.2025 passed by the respondent is illegal and in gross violation of the Principles of Natural Justice, as contended by the petitioner? The petitioner argued that the impugned order was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice, implying that they were not afforded a proper opportunity of being heard or that the order was otherwise procedurally flawed. The petitioner sought to quash the order on these grounds. The respondent, represented by the Additional Government Pleader, did not explicitly record arguments in the judgment. However, the court's decision to grant liberty to file a statutory appeal suggests that the respondent's action of passing the order was based on their assessment of the situation, and the court acknowledged the petitioner's grievance regarding the process.