Tvl Nesta vs. The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (St)

Held

The Court decided to partially grant relief to the petitioner by quashing the impugned order dated 21.02.2025. The reasoning was based on the peculiar facts of the case and the petitioner's plea regarding the lack of a further opportunity for hearing. The Court found merit in setting aside the order, subject to certain conditions. The ratio decidendi is that while statutory remedies exist, a High Court, in its writ jurisdiction, can intervene to set aside an order passed in violation of natural justice, provided the petitioner complies with specific conditions. The operative directions include the petitioner depositing 25% of the disputed tax amount within 30 days, filing a detailed reply to the show cause notice within the same period, and upon compliance, the second respondent is to pass a fresh order on merits after affording a hearing within three months. Failure to comply would result in the writ petition being dismissed.

Facts

The petitioner, Tvl. Nesta, represented by its Proprietor, challenged an order dated 21.02.2025 passed by the Assistant Commissioner (ST), Srirangam Assessment Circle, concerning the tax period 2020-2021. The petitioner contended that the impugned order was passed without affording a further opportunity of personal hearing, despite a request for time to file a reply to the show cause notice dated 26.11.2024. The respondents argued that multiple reminders were issued, and a final opportunity was given on 14.02.2025, after which the petitioner failed to submit a reply. The respondents also raised the issue of the petitioner's alternative remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the GST enactments, which was not availed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order dated 21.02.2025, passed by the Assistant Commissioner (ST) for the tax period 2020-2021, is liable to be quashed for violation of principles of natural justice by not affording a further opportunity of personal hearing after the petitioner requested time to reply to the show cause notice dated 26.11.2024. Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the impugned order was passed without providing a further opportunity for a personal hearing, despite their request for time to file a reply to the show cause notice. This, they contended, rendered the order unconstitutional. Respondents' contention: The respondents argued that the petitioner was issued a show cause notice and subsequent reminders, including a final opportunity on 14.02.2025, but failed to submit any reply. They further contended that the petitioner had an alternative remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the respective GST enactments, which was not availed, making the writ petition not maintainable.