Ramajeyam Engineering Industries Vs Deputy Commissioner (State Tax)
Date: December 15, 2024
Court: High Court
Bench: Madras
Type: Writ Petition
Subject Matter
Limitation period for an appeal against the assessment order commences from the date of the rectification application’s dismissal rather than from the date of the original assessment order
Summary
The case of Ramajeyam Engineering Industries Vs Deputy Commissioner at the Madras High Court involved a dispute over a GST assessment order dated August 19, 2024, and the subsequent rejection of a rectification application dated November 22, 2024. Ramajeyam Engineering Industries contended that the assessing authority did not provide adequate reasoning for the demand placed upon them in the show cause notice and that their rectification request was dismissed without proper justification. The petitioner sought a directive for a reconsideration of the assessment based on their explanation. - The respondent, represented by the Additional Government Pleader, argued that the rectification application was reviewed and rejected because the petitioner failed to provide supporting documentary evidence, and emphasized the petitioner's right to appeal instead. The petitioner's counsel expressed concern about the appellate authority's calculation of limitation from the original assessment date, which could jeopardize their appeal. - The Madras High Court clarified that the limitation period for an appeal against the assessment order should commence from the date of the rectification application’s dismissal (i.e., November 22, 2024) rather than from the date of the original assessment order. The court granted the petitioner the liberty to file an appeal within this new limitation period and disposed of the writ petition without imposing costs.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Heard Mr.G.Thalaimutharasu, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.R.Suresh Kumar, learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondent.
2. This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the impugned demand order dated 19.08.2024 and consequential impugned order of rejection of rectification dated 22.11.2024 and to consequently directing the respondent to reconsider and rectify based on the petitioner’s explanation dated 18.11.2024 in the light of the provisions of Section 161 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act.
3. It is the case of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent while passing the order of assessment had not dealt with the issue in a proper manner and had not given any reasons as to why the demand made in the show cause notice was affirmed. Hence, a rectification application had been filed before the respondent and again the same had been rejected without assigning any reasons. Therefore, he prays this Court to set aside the order impugned in the Writ Petition.
4. The learned Additional Government Pleader, on the other hand, submits that subsequent to the passing of the assessment order, the petitioner filed an application for rectification, which was duly considered by the respondent. He contends that upon examining the rectification application, it was evident that the petitioner had not furnished any documentary evidence to substantiate their claim, and consequently, the rectification application was rejected due to the absence of any apparent error on the face of the record. The Additional Government Pleader further submits that the petitioner has an available right of appeal against the said order and therefore prays this Court to dismiss the Writ Petition, allowing the petitioner to pursue their statutory remedy by way of appeal.
5. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the appellate authority would insist on calculating the period of limitation from the date when the original assessment order was passed and in such case, the appeal would be much beyond the period of limitation and would apprehend that the appeal would not be entertained as it is being made beyond the period of limitation. After assessment order has been made, Section 161 of the GST Act provides for an application to be made for rectification. Such rectification can be disposed either in favour of the assessee or against him. If any rectification is made as prayed for, the same would get merged into the original order. Just because the rectification application has been rejected, the period of limitation to challenge the original assessment order cannot be said to begin from the date on which the original order was passed, it would only count from the date on which the order of rectification has been passed.
6. In the present case, the original order of assessment was made on 19.08.2024 and the order in rectification was made on 22.11.2024. Therefore, the period of limitation for challenging the order of assessment dated 19.08.2024 shall start ticking from the date of rejection of the rectification application i.e., from 11.2024. It is made clear that when the appeal is filed by the assessee as against the original order of assessment, the period of limitation shall be calculated from the date on which the rectification had been dismissed.
7. With the above said liberty, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.