2025 (4) TMI 235 - HC - GST

Challenge to assessment order passed by the second respondent which was subsequently confirmed by the rectification order passed by the second respondent - HELD THAT - The petitioner is having an appeal remedy before the Deputy Commissioner (GST Appeal) Tirunelveli 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 appellate authority shall entertain the appeal without reference to the period of limitation and dispose of the same in accordance with law within a period of three months thereafter. In the interregnum the respondents shall maintain status quo prevailing as on date.

Summary

In the case before the Madras High Court, the petitioner, a firm dealing in wholesale cement, challenged an assessment order dated April 30, 2024, and a subsequent rectification order dated January 22, 2025, issued by the second respondent for the Assessment Year 2018-2019. The petitioner alleged discrepancies in the GST return due to a mismatch between the Input Tax Credit (ITC) claimed in GSTR-3B and the details in GSTR-2A. The petitioner argued that the order wrongly invoked Section 74 of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax (TNGST) Act, 2017, which pertains to willful misstatement or misrepresentation, asserting that the discrepancies were technical and not intentional. The petitioner further contended that the rejection of their rectification application was arbitrary and violated natural justice principles.The respondent's counsel, Mr. J.K. Jayaselan, noted that the petitioner had an available appeal remedy under Section 107 of the GST Act, 2017, with the Deputy Commissioner (GST Appeal), Tirunelveli, which the petitioner had not pursued.The court, presided over by Honourable Mr. Justice Vivek Kumar Singh, acknowledged the respondent's submission and disposed of the writ petition, granting the petitioner liberty to approach the appellate authority. The court directed that if an appeal is filed within two weeks of receiving the order, the appellate authority must consider it without regard to the limitation period and resolve it within three months. The court ordered the maintenance of the status quo and closed the connected Miscellaneous Petition, with no order as to costs.