TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Statutory Appeal Triumph: Show Cause Notice Dispute Resolved, Procedural Fairness Upheld for Petitioner's Right to Hearing</h1> <h3>Tvl. Nachimuthu Selvaraj Versus The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (ST) (FAC) Goods and Services Tax, Coimbatore, The Deputy State Tax Officer-2</h3> HC resolved a statutory appeal dispute involving a Show Cause Notice and delayed appeal filing. The HC quashed the Appellate Commissioner's order ... Maintainability of appeal - petitioner received two reminders, instead of filing reply, the petitioner had appeared in person - HELD THAT:- The facts of the case are almost identical as in TVL. SAMIKKANNU SENTHIL KUMAR PROPRIETOR OF M/S. ALPHA AGENCIES VERSUS THE APPELLATE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (ST) (FAC), THE DEPUTY STATE TAX OFFICER-2, VALPARAI CIRCLE, VALPARAI [2023 (8) TMI 971 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] 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. Petition disposed off. Issues involved: Show Cause Notice, Statutory Appeal, Delay in filing appeal, Disposal of appeal on merits.Show Cause Notice: The petitioner received a Show Cause Notice on 26.11.2020, followed by a reminder notice dated 24.02.2022, leading to an order by the second respondent on 12.07.2022. The petitioner, instead of filing a reply, personally appeared before the second respondent on 27.01.2023 and submitted supporting documents.Statutory Appeal: The petitioner filed a statutory appeal before the first respondent Appellate Deputy Commissioner on 10.02.2023, which was rejected on grounds of delay. The Appellate Commissioner noted that the appeal was filed beyond the condonable limit, with a delay of three months, and hence dismissed the appeal. The order communicated to the appellant on 12.07.2022 allowed time till 11.10.2022 to file the appeal, with a further one-month extension till 11.11.2022 as per Section 107(4) of the TNGST Act, 2017.Delay in filing appeal: The Appellate Commissioner emphasized that there is no provision under the TNGST Act, 2017 to condone the delay of eighty-nine days in filing the appeal beyond the prescribed limit. As a result, the appeal was dismissed for being filed after the condonable limit of four months from the date of communication of the decision or order.Disposal of appeal on merits: The High Court, considering the similar facts in another case, directed the first respondent Appellate Deputy Commissioner to dispose of the petitioner's appeal on merits. The impugned order was quashed, and the case was remitted back to the first respondent for disposal within four weeks from the date of receipt of the court's order. The petitioner is to be heard before any final decision is made.This Writ Petition is disposed of with the above observations, with no costs incurred, and the connected Writ Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
