Case Law Details
A J Textiles Vs Deputy State Tax Officer-1 (Madras High Court)
In recent legal proceedings at the Madras High Court, a crucial decision was made in the case of A J Textiles Vs Deputy State Tax Officer-1. The court addressed an appeal challenging an order dated 08.08.2023, which was initially rejected due to a perceived delay in filing.
The case revolves around W.P.No.13411 of 2024 and W.P.No.13414 of 2024, wherein the petitioner contested an order dated 08.08.2023 and an appellate order dated 01.03.2024 respectively. The primary contention was that the appeal filed against the original order was presented 20 days beyond the condonable period specified under sub-section 4 of Section 107 of GST enactments.
The petitioner, represented by learned counsel, argued that despite the delay, the appeal should be considered on its merits. The Madras HC examined the timelines and concluded that a 20-day delay was justifiable under the circumstances. This led the court to set aside the appellate order of 01.03.2024 and remand the matter to the appellate authority.
The judgment emphasized the interest of justice in allowing the appeal to be re-presented within 10 days, without further scrutiny into the question of limitation. This decision marks a significant precedent in GST-related appeals concerning condonable delays and judicial discretion.
In conclusion, the Madras High Court’s directive in the case of A J Textiles Vs Deputy State Tax Officer-1 highlights the judiciary’s stance on procedural delays under GST enactments. By remanding the appeal and setting aside the appellate order, the court ensures that cases are adjudicated on their merits, rather than being dismissed solely on technical grounds.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
In W.P.No.13411 of 2024, an order in original dated 08.08.2023 is challenged. In W.P.No.13414 of 2024, an appellate order dated 01.03.2024 is challenged.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order dated 08.08.2023 was carried in appeal and that such appeal was rejected on the ground that it was presented beyond the condonable period under sub-section 4 of Section 107 of applicable GST enactments. By pointing out that such appeal was filed on 28.12.2023, which is only 20 days beyond the condonable period, learned counsel seeks interference of this Court.
3. Mr. V. Prashanth Kiran, learned Government Advocate, accepts notice for the respondents. As regards W.P.No.13411 of 2024, he submits that the petitioner opted to file a statutory appeal and that, therefore, the said writ petition should not be entertained.
4. On perusal of the appellate order dated 01.03.2024, it is evident that the petitioner filed the appeal on 28.12.2023 and the 30 day period expired on 08.12.2023. Since the delay beyond the condonable period is only 20 days, the interest of justice warrants that the petitioner’s appeal be considered and disposed of on merits.
5. For reasons set out above, the appellate order dated 01.03.2024 is set aside and the matter is remanded to the appellate authority. If the petitioner re-presents the appeal within 10 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, the appellate authority is directed to receive and dispose of the same on merits without going into the question of limitation. In view of remanding W.P.No.13414 of 2024, W.P.No.13411 of 2024 is closed. Consequently, W.M.P.Nos.14568 & 14570 of 2024 are closed. No costs.
Author Bio
