Tvl.Sivaraman Agencies vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)

Held

The Court held that it was not concerned with the correctness of the decision in the impugned order but solely with the decision-making process. The Court found that while the petitioner alleged a violation of natural justice due to non-consideration of their reply and non-issuance of certain notices, the records indicated that at least three personal hearings were granted to the petitioner. The petitioner, however, failed to avail these opportunities for personal hearings. Consequently, the Court concluded that it could not intervene under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as the petitioner had not utilized the available procedural remedies. The petitioner was advised to approach the Appellate Authority by filing a statutory appeal under Section 107 of the GST enactments, 2017, to ventilate their grievances. No specific issue was left undecided; the petition was dismissed on procedural grounds.

Facts

The petitioner, Tvl.Sivaraman Agencies, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 24.04.2024 (uploaded on 25.04.2024) in DRC 07, passed by the Assistant Commissioner (ST), Madurai Rural (South) Circle. The petitioner contended that neither ASMT 10 nor GST DRC 01A was issued, and only a GST DRC 01 notice was served on 26.12.2023. A reply was filed on 29.01.2024, which the petitioner claims was not considered in the impugned order. The respondent is the Assistant Commissioner (ST). The tax period in dispute is 2018-19. The amount in dispute is not explicitly stated.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order dated 24.04.2024, passed by the respondent, is liable to be quashed for violation of principles of natural justice, specifically for non-consideration of the petitioner's reply filed on 29.01.2024, and for alleged non-issuance of ASMT 10 and GST DRC 01A notices, contrary to Section 73 of the CGST Act, 2017 and relevant rules? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the impugned order was passed without considering their reply and that proper pre-assessment notices (ASMT 10 and GST DRC 01A) were not issued, thus violating natural justice. They relied on the principle that a decision-making process must be fair. Respondent's arguments: The respondent, through the Government Advocate, did not explicitly argue on the merits of the petitioner's contentions regarding the notices or the consideration of the reply. However, the Court noted that at least three personal hearings were granted to the petitioner, which the petitioner failed to avail.