M/S.M M Traders vs. Deputy Commercial Tax Officer

Held

The Court noted the submission made by the learned Government Advocate for the first respondent that the petitioner possesses an appeal remedy before the Deputy Commissioner (GST), Tirunelveli, under Section 107 of the TNGST Act, 2017. Consequently, the Court disposed of the writ petition by granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the appellate authority. The petitioner is permitted to raise all the grounds raised in the writ petition before the appellate authority. The Court directed that if an appeal is filed within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, the appellate authority shall entertain the appeal without considering the period of limitation and shall dispose of the same in accordance with law within three months thereafter. No order as to costs was made. The connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s.M.M. Traders, filed a writ petition challenging an assessment order dated 01.04.2024 and a consequential rectification order dated 04.09.2024, both passed by the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Tuticorin - II. The petitioner contended that the assessment order for the year 2018-2019 was passed without providing sufficient opportunity, violating principles of natural justice. The first respondent (Deputy Commercial Tax Officer) argued that a show cause notice was issued on 22.09.2023, followed by personal hearing notices, and that the petitioner had an alternative appeal remedy under Section 107 of the TNGST Act, 2017. The second respondent is the Bank Manager of Canara Bank, Thoothukudi.

Key Issues

1. Whether the assessment order dated 01.04.2024 and the rectification order dated 04.09.2024, passed by the first respondent, are liable to be quashed on the grounds of violation of principles of natural justice due to insufficient opportunity provided to the petitioner? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the assessment order for the year 2018-2019 was passed without affording sufficient opportunity, thus violating the principles of natural justice, and therefore, the impugned orders should be set aside. Revenue's Contention: The first respondent contended that the assessment order was passed after issuing a show cause notice on 22.09.2023, followed by personal hearing notices on 26.10.2023, 15.11.2023, and 07.12.2023. The respondent further submitted that the petitioner has an available statutory appeal remedy under Section 107 of the TNGST Act, 2017, before the appellate Deputy Commissioner (GST), Tirunelveli, and that the petitioner has prematurely approached the High Court without exhausting this remedy.