Sri Parvathy Muruga Construction vs. The Deputy Commissioner (GST Appeals) (St)

Held

The Court noted the submission by the learned Government Advocate that the petitioner has an appeal remedy before the Deputy Commissioner (GST Appeal), Tirunelveli, under Section 107 of the TNGST Act, 2017. Consequently, the Court disposed of the writ petition, granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the appellate authority. The petitioner was permitted to raise all 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 the order, the appellate authority shall entertain the appeal without reference to the period of limitation and dispose of it in accordance with law within three months thereafter. The Court made no order as to costs.

Facts

The petitioner, Sri Parvathy Muruga Construction, filed a writ petition challenging an assessment order dated 14.11.2024, passed by the State Tax Officer/Commercial Tax Officer (second respondent). The petitioner contended that the order was passed in violation of natural justice as they were unable to appear and submit their explanation by the due date (13.11.2024) due to ill health. The petitioner sought to quash the order and requested a fresh assessment with an opportunity for a personal hearing. The respondents argued that a show cause notice was issued and the petitioner has an alternative remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the TNGST Act, 2017.

Key Issues

1. Whether the assessment order passed by the second respondent for the Assessment Year 2023-2024 is liable to be set aside for gross violation of the principles of natural justice, specifically for not providing sufficient opportunity for the petitioner to present their case, as argued by the petitioner? 2. Whether the petitioner, having approached the High Court directly, should be relegated to the statutory appellate remedy available under Section 107 of the TNGST Act, 2017, as contended by the respondents? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the assessment order was passed in violation of natural justice due to their inability to appear before the assessing authority owing to ill health. They sought a fresh assessment with a personal hearing. Respondents' Arguments: The respondents contended that a show cause notice was issued, and the impugned order was passed thereafter. They further argued that the petitioner has an effective alternative remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the TNGST Act, 2017, and therefore, the writ petition should not be entertained.