Tvl Sree Sakthi Saranya Spinning Mills vs. The Proper Officer Authorized Signatory

Held

The Court noted the submission by the learned Government Advocate that the petitioner possesses an appeal remedy before the appellate Deputy Commissioner (GST Appeals), Madurai, under Section 107 of the TNGST Act, 2017. Consequently, the Court disposed of the writ petition with liberty granted to the petitioner to approach the appellate authority. The petitioner is permitted to raise all grounds raised in the writ petition before the appellate authority. The Court further directed that if an appeal is filed within two weeks from the date of receiving a copy of this order, the appellate authority shall entertain it without considering the period of limitation and dispose of the appeal in accordance with law within four months thereafter. No order as to costs was made. The connected Miscellaneous Petition was closed.

Facts

The petitioner, Tvl. Sree Sakthi Saranya Spinning Mills, filed a writ petition challenging an assessment order dated 08.10.2024, passed by the Assistant Commissioner (ST), Tamil Nadu Commercial Taxes Department, for the Assessment Year 2021-2022. The petitioner contended that the order was passed without providing sufficient opportunity, violating principles of natural justice. The respondent, represented by the Government Advocate, argued that a show cause notice (DRC-01) was issued on 24.05.2024, followed by personal hearing notices on 23.06.2024, 18.07.2024, and 13.09.2024, asserting that sufficient opportunity was given. The respondent also pointed out that the petitioner had an alternative appeal remedy under Section 107 of the TNGST Act, 2017.

Key Issues

1. Whether the assessment order dated 08.10.2024, passed by the Assistant Commissioner (ST), violates the principles of natural justice by not providing sufficient opportunity to the petitioner, as argued by the petitioner? 2. Whether the petitioner has an effective alternative remedy under Section 107 of the TNGST Act, 2017, as contended by the respondent? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner argued that the impugned assessment order was passed without affording them adequate opportunity, thus contravening the principles of natural justice. They sought to quash the order on this ground. Respondent's Argument: The respondent contended that the assessment order was preceded by a show cause notice and multiple personal hearing notices, indicating that sufficient opportunity was provided. Furthermore, the respondent highlighted the availability of an appeal remedy under Section 107 of the TNGST Act, 2017, before the appellate Deputy Commissioner (GST Appeals), Madurai, suggesting that the petitioner should have availed this statutory remedy instead of approaching the High Court directly.