Case Law Details
Tvl. Nachimuthu Selvaraj Vs Appellate Deputy Commissioner (ST) (FAC) (Madras High Court)
In a significant decision, the Madras High Court has addressed the issue of condonation of delay in filing a Goods and Services Tax (GST) appeal. The petitioner, in this case, had filed an appeal beyond the permissible time frame, and the court’s ruling has far-reaching implications for similar cases. This article provides a detailed analysis of the case, the court’s findings, and the implications of this decision on GST appeals.
Detailed Analysis
The case revolves around the petitioner-assessee who received a Show Cause Notice on November 26, 2020, followed by a reminder notice on February 24, 2022. These notices eventually led to an adjudication order by the respondent-department on July 12, 2022. After this order, the petitioner received two more reminders on November 9, 2022, and January 19, 2023.
Rather than filing a reply, the petitioner chose to appear in person before the respondent-department on January 27, 2023. During this appearance, the petitioner submitted all necessary documents in support of their case. Additionally, the petitioner filed a statutory appeal before the first respondent Appellate Deputy Commissioner on February 10, 2023.
However, this appeal was rejected on the grounds that it was filed beyond the permissible time frame. The first respondent cited Section 107(1) of the TNGST Act, 2017, which allows for appeals within three months from the date of communication of the decision or order. Furthermore, Section 107(4) permits an additional one-month extension under specific circumstances.
The first respondent noted that the order had been communicated to the appellant on July 12, 2022, giving them until October 11, 2022, to file the appeal. The one-month extension under Section 107(4) would have extended this deadline to November 11, 2022. However, the appellant filed the appeal on February 10, 2023, an 89-day delay beyond the permissible limit.
The first respondent concluded that there was no provision in the TNGST Act, 2017, to condone such a delay, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.
Conclusion
In light of the facts and arguments presented, the Madras High Court’s decision in this case is pivotal. The court decided to condone the delay, citing a similar case (W.P.No.22716 of 2023) and directed the first respondent to dispose of the petitioner’s appeal on its merits.
Consequently, the impugned order by the first respondent was quashed, and the case was remitted back to them with the instruction to dispose of the petitioner’s appeal within four weeks, considering the principles of law. It’s essential to note that the petitioner will be given an opportunity to be heard.
This decision underscores the significance of understanding the provisions of the GST Act, particularly regarding the timelines for filing appeals, and the courts’ discretion in condoning delays under specific circumstances. It sets a precedent for similar cases in the realm of GST appeals, ensuring that meritorious appeals are not dismissed solely due to procedural delays.
In conclusion, the Madras High Court’s stance on condoning delay in GST appeals is a significant development in the legal landscape, providing clarity on the interpretation of relevant sections and safeguarding the rights of appellants. This decision serves as a reminder of the importance of complying with statutory timelines while also recognizing exceptional cases where delay can be condoned in the interest of justice.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Mrs. K.Vasanthamala, learned Government Advocate takes notice on behalf of the respondents.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate for the respondents.
3. The facts of the present case is almost similar to the facts of the case in W.P.No.22716 of 2023. Here also, the Show Cause Notice was issued to the petitioner on 26.11.2020 followed by reminder notice dated 24.02.2022, which has culminated in order of the second respondent dated 12.07.2022.
4. After the aforesaid order was passed by the second respondent, the petitioner received two reminders dated 09.11.2022 and 19.01.2023. Instead of filing reply, the petitioner had appeared in person before the second respondent on 27.01.2023 and filed all the documents in support of his contention.
5. By way of an abundant caution, the petitioner has also filed a statutory appeal before the first respondent Appellate Deputy Commissioner on 10.02.2023, which has been rejected by the first respondent Appellate Commissioner with the following observations:-
“This appeal is filed under the section 107(1) of the TNGST Act, 2017 by Tvl.Nachimuthu Selvaraj Trader Name : N.Selvaraj (GST IN: 33DFUPS7884L1Z6), 9/681, Nadumalai Lay out, Valparai Coimbatore – 642 127 against the order of the Deputy State Tax Officer, Valparai Assessment Circle, Valparai, Pollachi in Form DRC 07 Ref.No.ZD330722004925K (for the year 2019-2020) dated 12.07.2022.
I have carefully verified the records submitted before me and after examining the documents and contentions raised by the appellant following order is passed as per the provisions of the TNGST Act, 2017.
The Goods and Services Tax 2017 was implemented from 1st July 2017. As per Section 107(1) of the TNGST Act 2017
Any person aggrieved by any decision or order passed under this act or the State Goods and Service Tax act or the Union Territory Goods and Services Tax Act by an adjudicating authority may appeal to such appellate authority as may be prescribed within three months from the date on which the said decision or order is communicated to such person.
As per the provisions of the Act, the appellants have sufficient time of three months to file their appeal against any order against which they are aggrieved.
And as per Section 107(4) of the TNGST Act, 2017, which reads as follows:
The Appellate Authority may, if he is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from presenting the appeal within the aforesaid period of three months allow it to be presented within a further period of one month.
As per the above provision, if the appellants has been prevented for sufficient cause from non-presenting the appeal within the aforesaid period of three months as per section 107(1) of the TNGST Act, 2017, the appellant has been allowed a further period of one month, only if the appellant has been prevented by sufficient cause from presenting the appeal within the period of three months.
Therefore on any accounts an appeal presented after a period of four months from the date of receipt of the decision or order being communicated to such a person shall not be entertained by the Appellate Authority functioning under the TNGST Act, 2017.
In the appellants case the order has been communicated to the appellant on 12.07.2022 through online. The appellant had time till 11.10.2022 to file appeal against the order before this forum.
Further the appellant as per section 107(4) also had one month time for sufficient cause from non-presenting the appeal within the period of three months as per section 107(1) of the TNGST Act. Such time of further one month expires on 11.11.2022.
The appellant has filed the appeal before this forum only on 10.02.2023 by a further delay of eighty nine days for which there is no provision under the TNGST Act, 2017 to condone the delay and entertain the appeal filed by the appellant. Hence I have no other option except to dismiss the appeal filed by appellant, since the appeal has been filed beyond the condonable limit with a delay of three months.
In fine, the appeal stands Dismissed.”
6. The facts of the case are almost identical as in W.P.No.22716 of 2023 wherein, the first respondent Appellate Deputy Commissioner has been directed to dispose of the petitioner’s appeal on merits. Consequently, the impugned order passed by the first respondent is quashed and the case is remitted back to the first respondent to dispose of the appeal of the petitioner on merits and in accordance with law within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
7. Needless to state, before passing such order, the petitioner shall be heard.
8. This Writ Petition is disposed of with the above observations.
No costs. Consequently, connected Writ Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
