Oasys Marketing Agency Vs Deputy State Tax Officer-2 (Madras High Court)
Summary : The Madras High Court disposed of Oasys Marketing Agency’s writ petition challenging the assessment order dated 22.04.2024 and the consequential order dated 29.08.2024 for the assessment year 2019-2020, granting liberty to approach the statutory appellate authority. The petitioner contended that the assessment order had been communicated only through the online portal, without physical service by registered post or any other mode. It further alleged that it had not been afforded an opportunity of personal hearing, amounting to a violation of the principles of natural justice. The Government Advocate submitted that the assessment order followed a show cause notice and personal hearing notices dated 08.07.2024, 16.07.2024 and 29.07.2024. He also pointed to the availability of an appeal remedy under Section 107 of the TNGST Act, 2017 before the appellate authority at Tiruchirappalli. Recording the submission regarding the appellate remedy, the Court permitted the petitioner to file an appeal and raise all the grounds advanced in the writ petition. It directed that, if the appeal was filed within two weeks from receipt of a copy of its order, the appellate authority must entertain it without reference to the period of limitation and dispose of it in accordance with law within three months thereafter.
The Court did not adjudicate the assessment dispute on merits or expressly uphold the petitioner’s allegation of denial of hearing. No costs were awarded, and the connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
1. This Writ Petition is filed challenging the assessment order passed by the first respondent, dated 22.04.2024 and the consequential order dated 29.08.2024 passed by the second respondent for the assessment year 2019-2020.
2. With the consent of both sides, this Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned assessment order has been passed by the respondent only through the online portal and that there has been no physical service of the said order on the petitioner, either by registered post or by any other mode. As a result, the petitioner was not afforded an opportunity of personal hearing, which amounts to a violation of the principles of natural justice. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition before this Court.
4. Mr. J.K. Jayaselan, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent submits that the impugned assessment order has been passed after issuing show cause notice to the petitioner followed by personal hearing notices, dated 08.07.2024, 16.07.2024 and 29.07.2024 and therefore, there is no need to interfere with the impugned order. He further submits that against the impugned order, the petitioner has an appeal remedy before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (ST) GST Appeal, Tiruchirappalli, under Section 107 of the TNGST Act, 2017. However, instead of invoking the appeal remedy, the petitioner has directly approached this Court.
5. Recording the submission made by the learned Government Advocate that the petitioner is having an appeal remedy before the Deputy Commissioner (ST) (GST), Trichy, under Section 107 of the GST Act, 2017, this writ petition is disposed of, with liberty to the petitioner to approach the appellate authority and raise all the grounds raised in this writ petition in the appeal. In the event, if any appeal is filed within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, the same shall be entertained by the appellate authority without reference to the period of limitation and disposed of in accordance with law, within a period of three months thereafter. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
