Sundarapandian vs. The State Tax Officer - 1

Held

The Court held that while the respondents argued for an alternate remedy, the petitioner's claim of non-service of notices and violation of natural justice warranted consideration. The Court acknowledged the transition to electronic communication for GST notices, noting that some assessees are still adapting. Consequently, the Court decided to set aside the impugned order and remit the case back to the first respondent. The petitioner was directed to deposit 10% of the disputed tax as a condition for fresh consideration. The quashed order was to be treated as an addendum to the show cause notice (DRC 01). The petitioner was granted 30 days to file a reply, and the first respondent was directed to pass a fresh order on merits within two months, ensuring the petitioner was heard before finalization. The Court found merit in the petitioner's plea regarding natural justice.

Facts

The petitioner, Sundarapandian, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 12.02.2024 passed by the first respondent, the State Tax Officer -1, for the assessment year 2017-18. The petitioner contended that the impugned order was passed in gross violation of the principles of natural justice as the notices referred to in the order were never served on them. The respondents, represented by the learned Additional Government Pleader, argued that the petitioner had an alternate remedy before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (ST) GST Appeals and that notices were sent in accordance with GST enactment provisions, with the petitioner failing to avail the opportunity. The petitioner had rushed to the Court to challenge the order.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order dated 12.02.2024, passed by the first respondent, is liable to be quashed for gross violation of the principles of natural justice, specifically concerning the non-service of notices on the petitioner, thereby contravening principles of natural justice and potentially relevant provisions of the GST Act concerning notice issuance and service? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the impugned order suffered from a gross violation of the principles of natural justice because none of the notices mentioned in the order's preamble were actually served on them. Therefore, the order should be quashed. Respondents' Arguments: The respondents contended that the petitioner had an alternate remedy of appeal before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (ST) GST Appeals. They also submitted that all notices were dispatched to the petitioner as per the GST enactment provisions, and the petitioner failed to utilize the provided opportunities, thus rushing to file the writ petition. They argued that the petition lacked merit.