V.N.V. Builders Pvt. Ltd. Vs State Tax Officer (Madras High Court)
In the case of V.N.V. Builders Pvt. Ltd. vs. State Tax Officer, the appellant challenged an order dated 09.01.2019, arguing that it was not communicated through any official mode, including the GST portal. The issue arose when the appellant received a garnishee notice on 15.05.2024, prompting them to request a certified copy of the order. They contended that the mandatory procedural requirements under the GST Act, such as serving GST DRC-01A, GST DRC-01, GST DRC-07, or GST DRC-07A, were not followed, violating Article 265 of the Constitution and principles of natural justice. The appellant claimed that the lack of communication made the proceedings legally unsustainable. However, the government counsel countered that the appellant had been aware of the order since at least 26.11.2020, when a recovery notice referenced it. Despite this knowledge, the appellant did not challenge the order promptly, only submitting a letter on 28.12.2020 regarding adjustments under the TNVAT Act.
The Madras High Court ruled that the validity of service of notice is a factual question best addressed by the appropriate appellate authority rather than under writ jurisdiction. Citing the Supreme Court’s judgment in Gita Devi Aggarwal v. Commissioner of IT (1970) 76 ITR 496 (SC), the Court emphasized that where an alternative and effective remedy exists, High Courts should generally refrain from exercising writ jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Court dismissed the writ appeal but granted the appellant the liberty to file an appeal within four weeks, subject to compliance with pre-deposit conditions. The appellate authority was directed to examine the service of notice as a preliminary issue before proceeding on the merits of the case.
