Limitation under GST appeal procedure upheld, while assessment on input tax credit dispute was remitted for fresh adjudication.

An appeal filed beyond the statutory limitation period under Section 107 of the Tamil Nadu GST Act was not interfered with, as the appellate authority was found to have correctly rejected it as time-barred. At the same time, the assessment and consequential demand were set aside because notices had preceded the order and the dispute on input tax credit could be reconsidered on a proper reply. Fresh adjudication was directed, subject to deposit of part of the disputed tax. The result was that the limitation-based dismissal of the appeal stood, while the assessment was remitted for de novo proceedings.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the appellate order dismissing the petitioner's appeal as time-barred required interference. (ii) Whether the assessment order and the consequential demand proceedings required to be quashed with a direction for fresh consideration.

Issue (i): Whether the appellate order dismissing the petitioner's appeal as time-barred required interference.

Analysis: The appeal had been filed beyond the statutory period for condoning delay under Section 107 of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and the Court found no reason to hold that the appellate authority had wrongly rejected the appeal on that ground.

Conclusion: The dismissal of the appeal as beyond limitation was upheld, against the petitioner.

Issue (ii): Whether the assessment order and the consequential demand proceedings required to be quashed with a direction for fresh consideration.

Analysis: The assessment order had been preceded by notices, and the dispute involved objections concerning input tax credit. Balancing the interests of both sides, the Court interfered with the assessment order and directed fresh proceedings after the petitioner's reply, subject to deposit of part of the disputed tax.

Conclusion: The assessment order was quashed and the matter was directed to be reconsidered afresh, in favour of the petitioner subject to compliance.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded only to the extent of setting aside the assessment and requiring de novo proceedings, while the challenge to the appellate dismissal failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an assessment has been preceded by notices and the controversy can be re-examined on a proper reply, the Court may direct fresh adjudication notwithstanding an appellate rejection on limitation, while upholding the limitation-based dismissal itself.

---