Case Law Details
Muthu Vairam Export And Imports Vs Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT) (Madras High Court)
The Madras High Court examined a writ petition challenging an appellate order dated 06.11.2024, which had rejected the petitioner’s appeal on the ground that it was filed beyond the condonable period. The assessment order in question had been passed ex parte under Section 73 of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
The petitioner submitted that the delay occurred due to failure of a part-time accountant to respond to the show cause notice and to file the appeal within the prescribed time. It was also noted that the petitioner had deposited 10% of the disputed tax amount at the time of filing the appeal. The respondent contended that once the delay exceeded the condonable limit, the appellate authority had no discretion but to dismiss the appeal.
Upon consideration of the submissions and records, the Court observed that the assessment involved issues relating to mismatch between GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B and that the assessment order had been passed ex parte. Taking into account the reasons provided by the petitioner and the nature of the case, the Court held that an opportunity should be granted to the petitioner.
Accordingly, the Court set aside the impugned appellate order and remanded the matter to the respondent authority for fresh consideration. The relief was made conditional upon the petitioner depositing 15% of the disputed tax amount within four weeks. The petitioner was directed to appear before the authority, submit additional replies, and produce supporting documents.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
The writ petition is filed, challenging the order dated 06.11.2024.
2. Heard Mr.S.Renganathan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.R.Suresh Kumar, learned Additional Government Pleader, who takes notice for the respondents.
3. The impugned order dated 06.11.2024 was passed by the Appellate Authority rejecting the appeal as it was beyond the condonable period. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner would pray that in spite of the prayer made in the writ petition, this Court shall suitably mold the relief and grant the same to the petitioner.
4. Under the said circumstances, upon perusal of the material records of the case, it can be seen that the order of assessment was passed under Section 73 of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and it was an ex-parte order.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that by the default of the part-time accountant engaged reply to the showcase notice was not given in time and the appeal was also not filed in time. It is seen that the petitioner has also deposited 10% of the disputed tax amount at the time of filing of the appeal.
6. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents would submit that if the delay is beyond the condemnable limit, the appellate authority has no other option than to dismiss the same. It was for the petitioner to have availed the opportunity.
7. I have considered the rival submissions made on either side and perused the material records of the case.
8. Upon considering the rival submissions made and the nature of the assessment that the reason mentioned in the assessment order that there is mismatch between GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B and the reasons that are pleaded by the petitioner, I am of the view that the opportunity can be granted to the petitioner.
9. In view thereof, this writ petition is allowed on the following terms:-
i. The petitioner is directed to deposit 15% of the disputed tax amount with the respondent within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a web copy of this order, without waiting for the certified copy of the order;
ii. On such deposit, the impugned order dated 06.11.2024 is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the file of the respondent.
iii. The petitioner is directed to appear before the respondent without fail, file any additional reply, and produce all documents in support of his claim
iv. Upon receipt of the same, the respondent is directed to reconsider the issue afresh and and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible.
v. It is needless to state that the petitioner depositing 15% of the disputed tax amount, the bank attachment shall be lifted and the account shall be de-freezed.
vi. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
Author Bio
