Case Law Details
Jony Electricity India Engineering Private Limited Vs Appellate Authority (Madras High Court)
Case Background and Initial Default
The petitioner, Jony Electricity India Engineering Private Limited, is a Private Limited Company engaged in Engineering services and registered under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Act, 2017 (‘Act’).
The company allegedly failed to file its returns of turnover under the Act due to an alleged misunderstanding between the company and an erstwhile Director, which resulted in the change of name of the authorized signatory not being effected in time.
In light of the statutory requirement to file returns within stipulated periods and the petitioner’s admitted defaults, the Assessing Authority (R2) issued a notice of cancellation of registration on December 2, 2021, initiated online through the official portal.
Cancellation of Registration and Service of Notice
The petitioner neither submitted any response nor appeared for a personal hearing that was fixed in the cancellation notice. While the petitioner tentatively stated that they had been unaware of the notice, the Court affirmed its previous view that service effected online in terms of Section 169(1)(d) of the Act, constitutes valid service.
The Assessing Authority (R2) proceeded to pass an order on January 10, 2022, cancelling the registration of the petitioner. This cancellation order was also uploaded on the same day in the official portal.
Appeal and Statutory Limitation
The petitioner later approached the Assessing Authority (R2) seeking revocation of the cancellation. The Assessing Authority informed the petitioner that the request for revocation was made after the statutory period.
Subsequently, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority (R1) on August 18, 2022. The appeal was filed belatedly.
The provisions of Section 107 of the Act govern appeals and stipulate that an appeal against any order must be filed within a period of 90 days. Section 107 also provides for an additional period of one month (30 days) for which the authority may grant condonation if a justifiable explanation is set out by the assessee.
Madras High Court’s Finding and Holding
The Court noted the admitted position that the petitioner’s appeal was filed after a period of 6 months, which was over and above the statutory limitation of 90 + 30 days.
The Court observed that the petitioner “has set out no explanation, let alone justifiable explanation,” even for the one-month extension statutorily provided. The further delay of six months beyond the statutory limitation was deemed “fatal to its case.”
In light of the admitted position and the lack of explanation for the substantial delay, the Court determined that the dismissal of the appeal by the Appellate Authority (R1) is seen to be in order.
The Madras High Court, therefore, confirmed the impugned order passed by the Appellate Authority and dismissed the Writ Petition.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Mr. A.P. Srinivas, learned Senior Standing Counsel accepts notice for the respondents and is armed with instructions to proceed with the matter even at this juncture. Hence, by consent of both sides, this Writ Petition is disposed finally even at the stage of admission.
2. The petitioner has challenged an order passed by the Joint Commissioner of GST & Central Excise/R1, the appellate authority under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Act, 2017 (in short ‘Act’).
3. The petitioner is a Private Limited Company engaged in Engineering services, and registered under the provisions of the Act. While this is so, due to an alleged misunderstanding between the company and the erstwhile Director, the change of name of authorised signatory was not effected in time and hence the returns of turnover under the Act could not be filed.
4. In light of the statutory provisions requiring filing of statutory returns within the periods stipulated and the petitioner’s admitted defaults, the second respondent, i.e., the Assessing Authority of the petitioner, issued a notice of cancellation of registration on 02.12.2021, initiated online through the official portal.
5. The petitioner neither submitted any response nor appeared for a personal hearing that had been fixed in the aforesaid notice. Though there is a tentative statement of the petitioner that he had been unaware of the same, this Court has taken a view in W.P.No.25666 of 2022 that service effected online in terms of Section 169(1)(d) of the Act, constitutes valid service. R2 thus proceeded to pass an order dated 10.01.2022 cancelling the registration of the petitioner, also uploaded on the same day in the official portal.
6. The petitioner claims to have thereafter approached the second respondent seeking revocation of the cancellation. He was informed by the Assessing Authority that the request for revocation was made after the statutory period and hence proceeded to file an appeal before the appellate authority. An appeal had thus been filed on 18.08.2022 before R1 belatedly.
7. The provisions of Section 107 of the Act deal with ‘Appeal’ and provide that an appeal be filed as against any order of the State Goods and Services Tax Act within a period of 90 days. There is a period of one month after the aforesaid period of 90 days, for which the authority may grant condonation, if convinced by the explanation set out by the assessee. The appeal of petitioner has been filed after a period of 6 months, over and above the statutory limitation of 90 + 30 days.
8. In light of the above admitted position, the dismissal of the appeal by R1 is seen to be in order. The petitioner, to be noted, has set out no explanation, let alone justifiable explanation, for the condonation of even the one month extension statutorily provided and thus the further delay of 6 months over and above the statutory limitation is fatal to its case.
9. The impugned order is confirmed and this Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs.
Author Bio
