Case Law Details
Sri Shanmuga Motors Vs State Tax Officer (Madras High Court)
In a recent judgment, the Madras High Court addressed the case of Sri Shanmuga Motors versus the State Tax Officer regarding a delay in filing a GST appeal. The court’s decision has significant implications for tax law and procedural matters.
The crux of the matter lay in the condonable period for filing appeals under the GST Act. The petitioner’s appeal was rejected due to being filed beyond this period. However, upon scrutiny, the court found that the delay was only 21 days. Furthermore, it noted that the tax proposal was confirmed under Section 74 of the GST Act, despite lacking the necessary ingredients.
The petitioner’s argument revolved around the lack of satisfaction of Section 74 requirements. This crucial aspect prompted the court to intervene and set aside the appellate order. By doing so, the court directed the appellate authority to receive and dispose of the appeal on its merits, without delving into the question of limitation.
The Madras High Court’s decision in the case of Sri Shanmuga Motors versus State Tax Officer serves as a reminder of the court’s power to intervene when procedural fairness is at stake. By directing the condonation of the 21-day delay and emphasizing the importance of satisfying statutory requirements, the court ensures that justice prevails in matters of tax law.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
An order in original was issued against the petitioner on 09.09.2023. Such order was carried in appeal before the 2nd respondent. Such appeal was filed on 30.01.2024. On the ground that the appeal was presented beyond the condonable period, the appeal was rejected. This writ petition is directed against the original order dated 09.09.2023.
2. Although the writ petition is directed against the order in original, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner would prosecute the appeal, if the appellate authority is directed to receive and dispose of the same on merits.
3. Mr. V. Prashanth Kiran, learned Government Advocate, accepts notice for the respondents. He points out that the appeal was rejected because such appeal was presented beyond the condonable period prescribed in sub-section 4 of Section 107 of applicable GST enactments.
4. On perusal of the appellate order, it is evident that the delay beyond the condonable period is only 21 days. The petitioner has stated in the affidavit that the tax proposal was confirmed under Section 74 of applicable GST enactments in spite of the fact that the ingredients of Section 74 are not satisfied. By taking this aspect into account and by noticing that the period of delay beyond the condonable period is only 21 days, this writ petition is disposed of by setting aside the appellate order dated 30.03.2024 and consequently directing the 2nd respondent to receive and dispose of the appeal filed by the petitioner on merits without going into the question of limitation. There will be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed
Author Bio
