Case Law Details
Tvl.SKL Exports Vs Deputy Commissioner (ST)(GST)(Appeal) (Madras High Court)
The Madras High Court delivered a significant judgment in the case of Tvl.SKL Exports Vs Deputy Commissioner (ST)(GST)(Appeal), addressing the issue of time-barred appeals under GST laws. The petitioner, Tvl.SKL Exports, faced the rejection of their appeals by the GST Appellate Authority on the grounds of exceeding the statutory limitation period. The High Court’s ruling emphasized the importance of considering the merits of the case over procedural technicalities, particularly when delays are justifiable.
Background and Issue
Tvl.SKL Exports filed appeals with the GST Appellate Authority after their rectification petitions were dismissed. The appeals were rejected as time-barred under Section 107 of the GST laws, prompting the petitioner to approach the Madras High Court. The key issue was whether the delay in filing the appeals, influenced by the pending rectification petitions, could be condoned.
Petitioner’s Argument
The petitioner contended that the delay was due to the pending rectification petitions, which were filed within the prescribed period. Once these petitions were rejected, they promptly filed the appeals. The petitioner also highlighted the financial implications, including the deposit of 10% of the disputed tax and an appropriation of Rs 1,26,02,698 from their bank account. They argued that these actions demonstrated their commitment to compliance and requested the appellate authority to condone the delay.
Respondent’s Argument
The government advocate representing the respondents argued that the appellate authority’s decision was constrained by statutory limitations. According to the law, the appeals were filed beyond the permissible period, even considering the condonable delay, thereby justifying the rejection.
Court’s Ruling
The Hon’ble Madras High Court sided with the petitioner, acknowledging the reasons for the delay as valid. The court emphasized that the rectification petitions were filed within the allowed time frame and that the subsequent appeals were made soon after the rejection of these petitions. The court directed the appellate authority to hear the appeals on their merits without questioning the limitation period. Furthermore, the court allowed the petitioner to apply for a refund of the appropriated amount from the bank account, lifting the bank attachment.
Conclusion
The judgment in Tvl.SKL Exports Vs Deputy Commissioner (ST)(GST)(Appeal) underscores a critical aspect of judicial interpretation in tax law – balancing procedural rules with substantive justice. The Madras High Court’s decision to quash the appellate authority’s order and mandate a reconsideration of the appeals on their merits reflects a judicious approach, ensuring that technical delays do not overshadow legitimate grievances. This ruling sets a precedent for handling similar cases where procedural delays might impede the fair adjudication of tax disputes.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
By these three writ petitions, the petitioner challenges appellate orders declining to receive appeals filed by the petitioner as being barred by limitation.
2. Assessment orders were issued against the petitioner either on 30.09.2023 or 03.10.2023. In respect thereof, the petitioner filed rectification petitions. Such rectification petitions were rejected on 29.01.2024. Thereafter, the petitioner presented appeals before the appellate authority. Such appeals were rejected as being beyond the period of limitation prescribed in Section 107 of applicable GST enactments.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that rectification petitions were filed within the prescribed period of limitation and that such rectification petitions were rejected on 29.01.2024. By pointing out that appeals were filed soon after the rectification petitions were rejected, he submits that the petitioner requested the appellate authority to condone the delay. He also points out that a sum of Rs.1,26,02,698.80 was appropriated from the bank account of the petitioner in the Axis Bank towards the demand confirmed in the assessment orders.
4. Mr.V.Prashanth Kiran, learned Government Advocate, accepts notice for the respondents. He submits that the appellate authority was constrained to reject the appeals since such appeals were presented beyond the period prescribed in Section 107 of applicable GST enactments.
4. The impugned appellate orders indicate that appeals were filed about 21 to 24 days beyond the period for which appeal could be condoned by the appellate authority. The petitioner has explained the reasons for such delay by pointing out that rectification petitions were filed and that appeals were filed shortly after such rectification petitions were rejected. The petitioner has remitted 10% of the disputed tax demand and, in addition, a sum of Rs.1,26,02,698.80 was appropriated from the bank account of the petitioner towards the tax demand. In these circumstances, I am of the view that these are appropriate cases in which the appellate authority should be directed to receive and dispose of the appeals on merits.
5. For reasons set out above, the impugned appellate orders are quashed and the appellate authority is directed to receive and dispose of the appeals presented by the petitioner on merits without going into the question of limitation. Since a sum of Rs.1,26,02,698.80 was appropriated pursuant to the bank attachment, the said bank attachment shall stand raised. It is also open to the petitioner to file an appropriate application before the appellate authority with regard to the refund of the sum appropriated from the petitioner’s bank account.
6. These writ petitions are disposed of on the above terms. There will be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
Author Bio
