Tax Appeal Saved: Procedural Delay Overruled, Substantive Justice Prioritized Under Section 107 of TNGST Act

The SC reviewed a tax appeal rejected due to limitation under Section 107 of TNGST Act, 2017. Despite a 5-day delay in filing, the court directed the first respondent to consider the appeal on merits, emphasizing procedural technicalities should not obstruct substantive justice. The writ petition was disposed of, instructing reconsideration of the appeal without limitation constraints.

---

---

Issues:
1. Appeal against rejection of appeals due to limitation under Section 107 of TNGST Act, 2017.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged the impugned order rejecting their appeals against the Order-in-Original dated 21.12.2023 for the assessment year 2017-18, citing that the appeal was rejected by the first respondent due to being beyond the statutory period of limitation under Section 107 of the TNGST Act, 2017. The appeal was dated 24.04.2024, with the limitation for filing having expired on or before 20.03.2023. However, the petitioner had an additional 30 days to file an application to condone the delay, which would have extended the deadline to 19.04.2023. The Court noted a marginal delay of only 5 days beyond the condonable period.

The Court acknowledged that the second respondent, being a statutory authority, was duty-bound to comply with the provisions relating to limitation. Despite this, the Court recognized that the petitioner might have a valid case on merits, particularly due to discrepancies between the Returns filed by the petitioner and the information in GSTR 2A and GSTR 2B. The Court opined that the first respondent should consider the appeal on its merits, emphasizing that no assessee would benefit from intentionally delaying the appeal process when aggrieved by the Original Authority's decision.

The Court observed that the confirmed tax amount on the petitioner was Rs. 5,90,700.92 (Rs. 2,95,350.46 each towards SGST & CGST), with additional interest and penalty imposed. Considering the potential merit in the petitioner's case, the Court directed the first respondent to dispose of the appeal on its merits and in accordance with the law, without being hindered by the issue of limitation. Consequently, the Writ Petition was disposed of with the aforementioned directions, with no costs incurred, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.

---