Case Law Details
Steel Centre Vs State Tax Officer (Madras High Court)
Conclusion: Except of absence of ‘Natural Justice Principle violation, there is no other exception that arose in the case on hand, therefore, it was a fit case to relegate assessee to alternate remedy by way of statutory appeal under Section 107 of TNGST Act and CGST Act.
Held: Assessee had sent a reply to the impugned orders passed by the respondent in which respondent held that reply to be admissible, but had ultimately passed impugned orders on the basis that assessee was the beneficiary of ‘Input Tax Credit’ [‘ITC’] and the same had been adjusted towards outward tax liability. Assessee submitted that the objections of assessee had not been considered and objections of assessee not being considered was violation of one of the facets of ‘Natural Justice Principle’ [‘NJP’]. It was held that if assessee chose to take alternate remedy route or statutory appeal under Section 107 of TNGST Act and CGST Act, the same would be dealt with and decided on its own merits, in accordance with law by Appellate Authority uninfluenced by any observation that was made in this order which was for the limited purpose of disposal of captioned writ petitions. Appeal would be subject to limitation and pre-deposit conditions, but this Court refrained itself from expressing any opinion on the same as all these were in the domain of the Appellate Authority. It was open to assessee to make a plea before the Appellate Authority that the time spent in this Court in these writ petitions should be excluded (under Section 14 of Limitation Act, 1963) for the purpose of computation of limitation qua appeals. If assessee chose to do so, the same should be decided on its own merits and in accordance with law by the Appellate Authority.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER of MADRAS HIGH COURT
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
