Tvl.SKL Exports Vs Deputy Commissioner (ST)
Date: March 14, 2024
Subject Matter
Delay in filing GST Appeal due to pending rectification petitions is condonable
Summary
The petitioner filed rectification petitions after assessment orders were issued against them. When these rectification petitions were rejected, the petitioner filed appeals before the appellate authority. However, the appeals were rejected as being beyond the period of limitation prescribed in Section 107 of the GST enactments. The petitioner argued that the rectification petitions were filed within the prescribed period and that the delay in filing appeals was due to waiting for the outcome of the rectification petitions. The petitioner had also remitted a percentage of the disputed tax demand and a significant sum was appropriated from their bank account. The court quashed the appellate orders and directed the appellate authority to receive and dispose of the appeals on merits without considering the question of limitation.
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.