Tvl. J J Spares And Selvakumar vs. The State Tax Officer

Held

The Court noted the submission by the learned Government Advocate that the petitioner has an appeal remedy before the Deputy Commissioner (GST Appeal), Madurai, 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 the order, it shall be entertained by the appellate authority without reference to the period of limitation. The appellate authority was directed to dispose of the appeal in accordance with law within three months thereafter. No order as to costs was made. The connected miscellaneous petition was closed.

Facts

The petitioner, Tvl. J. J. Spares and Selvakumar, represented by its Proprietor Selvakumar, filed a writ petition before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court. The petition challenged an assessment order dated 14.08.2024, passed by the respondent, the State Tax Officer, Ramanathapuram Assessment Circle, for the tax period 2020-2021. The petitioner contended that the assessment order was passed without providing sufficient opportunity, violating principles of natural justice. The respondent argued that a show cause notice (DRC-01) was issued on 11.01.2023, followed by personal hearing notices on 13.02.2023, 09.03.2023, and 25.07.2024, 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 14.08.2024, passed by the respondent for the year 2020-2021, is liable to be quashed for violation of the principles of natural justice due to insufficient opportunity provided to the petitioner, as argued by the petitioner? 2. Whether the petitioner, having an alternative statutory appeal remedy under Section 107 of the TNGST Act, 2017, should be relegated to that forum instead of approaching the High Court directly, as argued by the respondent? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the impugned assessment order was passed without providing sufficient opportunity, thus violating the principles of natural justice, and therefore, the order should be set aside and the assessment redone. Respondent's Contention: The respondent contended that the assessment order was passed after issuing a show cause notice and multiple personal hearing notices, indicating that sufficient opportunity was provided. The respondent further argued that the petitioner has an available appeal remedy under Section 107 of the TNGST Act, 2017, and should have availed it before approaching the High Court.