TaxTMI Login
🎉 Festive Offer: Flat 15% off on all plans! →⚡ Don’t Miss Out: Limited-Time Offer →
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>Legal Challenge Succeeds: Appeal Reinstated Despite Delay, Ordered Reviewed on Merits Within 90 Days with Specific Tax Conditions</h1> <h3>Thangadurai Nadar Steels & Hardware and Paints Versus The Joint Commissioner (ST), The Deputy Commissioner (ST), The State Tax Officer, Thoothukudi.</h3> HC allowed appeal against limitation period rejection. Despite delayed filing, court remitted matter back to Appellate Commissioner, directing appeal ... Rejection of petitioner's appeal due to delay in filing - petitioner has filed the appeal before the second respondent, 14 days after the limitation expired for filing the appeal - HELD THAT:- Considering the fact that the delay is only a marginal delay, though beyond the statutory period of limitation, this Court is of the view that the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Appellate Commissioner to dispose of the same on merits and in accordance with law, subject to the petitioner depositing additionally 20% of the disputed tax over and above 10% is as contemplated under Section 107 of the respective GST enactments. Since the impugned order is quashed, the third respondent is directed to issue suitable directions to the Tamil Nad Mercantile Bank Ltd. to de-freeze the account of the petitioner, after deducting 20% from the petitioner's account towards pre-deposit. Petition allowed. Petitioner's appeal, filed 14 days beyond the statutory period of limitation, was rejected by the Appellate Commissioner. Citing precedent including Singh Enterprises v. Commissioner and Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU v. Glaxo Smith Kline, respondents contended that an appeal beyond limitation is not maintainable. Court found the delay to be marginal, set aside the impugned order dated 29.02.2024, and remitted the matter to the Appellate Commissioner to be disposed of 'on merits and in accordance with law.' Disposal is to occur within three months, and the petitioner 'shall be heard without reference of limitation on merits.' Remittal is conditional on the petitioner depositing an additional 20% of the disputed tax over and above the 10% pre-deposit as contemplated under Section 107 of the respective GST enactments. The impugned order is quashed and the third respondent is directed to instruct the bank to de-freeze the petitioner's account after deducting 20% towards pre-deposit. No costs.
TaxTMI 
