Madakkan Durai vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer - Ii

Held

The Court noted the submission of the learned Government Advocate that the petitioner possesses an appeal remedy under Section 107 of the TNGST Act, 2017, before the appellate Deputy Commissioner (ST) (GST). Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of with liberty granted 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, the appellate authority shall entertain the appeal without considering the period of limitation and dispose of it within three months thereafter. No order as to costs was made. The connected miscellaneous petition was closed.

Facts

The petitioner, Madakkan Durai, proprietor of Saravana Agencies, filed a writ petition challenging an assessment order dated 09.06.2023, passed by the Deputy State Tax Officer – II, Ambasamudram Assessment Circle, Tirunelveli, for the assessment year 2019-2020. The petitioner contended that the order was passed without providing sufficient opportunity, violating principles of natural justice. The respondent argued that a show cause notice was issued on 09.02.2023, followed by multiple personal hearing notices, and that the petitioner had an alternative appeal remedy under Section 107 of the TNGST Act, 2017, which was not availed. The Court considered the submissions of both parties.

Key Issues

1. Whether the assessment order dated 09.06.2023, passed by the respondent for the assessment year 2019-2020, is liable to be quashed for violation of the principles of natural justice due to insufficient opportunity provided to the petitioner, as per Article 226 of the Constitution of India? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the assessment order was passed without affording sufficient opportunity, thereby violating the principles of natural justice, making the order illegal and devoid of merits. The petitioner sought to quash the order and direct the respondent to redo the assessment proceedings. Respondent's Contention: The respondent contended that the assessment order was passed after issuing a show cause notice and multiple personal hearing notices, thus providing adequate opportunity. The respondent further submitted that the petitioner has an efficacious alternative remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the TNGST Act, 2017, before the appellate Deputy Commissioner (ST) (GST), and that the petitioner should have availed this remedy instead of directly approaching the High Court.