2025 (4) TMI 1663 - HC - GST

Maintainability of petition - availability of alternative remedy - Challenge to assessment order - assessment order for the year 2019-2020 passed without providing sufficient opportunity to the petitioner - violation of principles of natural justice - rejection of rectification application stating that the petitioner had not made amendments or reversed the I.T.C. in GSTR-3B - HELD THAT - The petitioner is having an appeal remedy before the Deputy Commissioner (ST) GST Appeal Tirunelveli under Section 107 of the TNGST 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 appellate authority shall entertain the appeal and dispose of the same in accordance with law within a period of one month thereafter. In the interregnum the respondents shall maintain status quo prevailing as on date. Petition disposed off.

Summary

The Madras High Court, through Justice Vivek Kumar Singh, disposed of a writ petition challenging the assessment order dated 21.01.2025 for the assessment year 2019-2020. The petitioner contended that the assessment was passed without sufficient opportunity, violating the principles of natural justice, and that the rectification application under Section 161 of the TNGST Act was wrongly rejected despite evidence of Input Tax Credit (I.T.C.) reversal in GSTR-3B.The Government Advocate submitted that the assessment followed due process and that the petitioner had an alternative remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the TNGST Act, 2017, which was not invoked.The Court held that since an appeal remedy exists, the writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner (ST) GST Appeal within two weeks. The appellate authority is directed to dispose of the appeal within one month, and the respondents must maintain the status quo during this period. The Court emphasized the procedural propriety of utilizing statutory appeal mechanisms before approaching the High Court.