Tvl. Arasu Agencies vs. The Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes

Held

The Court held that the petitioner has an available statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the TNGST Act, 2017, before the appellate Deputy Commissioner (ST) Appeal (GST), Madurai. Recording the submission of the learned Government Advocate regarding the availability of this appeal remedy, the Court decided to dispose of the writ petition. The Court granted liberty to the petitioner to approach the appellate authority and raise all the grounds that were raised in the writ petition. The Court further directed that if an appeal is filed within two weeks from the date of receipt of the order, the appellate authority shall entertain the appeal without reference to the period of limitation and dispose of the same in accordance with law within three months thereafter. No order as to costs was made.

Facts

The petitioner, Tvl. Arasu Agencies, represented by its Proprietor, Stella Tamilarasu, filed a writ petition challenging an assessment order dated August 27, 2024, passed by the Deputy State Tax Officer, Dindigul Fort Assessment Circle. The order pertains to the assessment year 2019-2020. The petitioner contended that the impugned order was passed without properly verifying their returns and without considering that they had not claimed or availed any ineligible Input Tax Credit (ITC). The respondents, represented by the Government Advocate, submitted that the petitioner has an alternative remedy of appeal before the appellate Deputy Commissioner (ST) Appeal (GST), Madurai, under Section 107 of the TNGST Act, 2017, and that the petitioner had approached the High Court directly without availing this remedy.

Key Issues

1. Whether the High Court should entertain a writ petition when an alternative statutory remedy of appeal is available to the petitioner under Section 107 of the TNGST Act, 2017? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the assessment order passed by the second respondent is unjustified and deserves to be set aside because it was passed without properly verifying their returns and without considering that they had not claimed or availed any ineligible ITC. They implicitly suggest that the assessment order is erroneous on merits, potentially justifying direct invocation of writ jurisdiction. Respondents' contention: The respondents contended that the petitioner has an appeal remedy before the appellate Deputy Commissioner (ST) Appeal (GST), Madurai, under Section 107 of the TNGST Act, 2017. They argued that the petitioner should have invoked this appeal remedy instead of directly approaching the High Court.