2025 (7) TMI 391 - HC - GST

Petitioner allowed to file delayed appeal within four weeks after depositing additional 10% of disputed tax amount

Tvl. Patil Constructions and Infrastructure Limited Versus The State Tax Officer, Tiruvannamalai

The HC disposed of a writ petition challenging an assessment order and consequential rectification order. The petitioner had filed a rectification ... Challenge to impugned order along with consequential order passed in the rectification petition - filing of rectification petition under the bonafide impression that the issue can be rectified through the rectification petition - petitioner is now ready to deposit 10% of disputed tax over and above the 10% before the authority concerned - HELD THAT:- In the present case, as rightly contended by the learned Government Advocate (Taxes) for the respondent that nothing prevented the petitioner from filing an appeal immediately after passing of the assessment order. However, in the interest of justice and in order to provide an opportunity to the petitioner to substantiate its case, this Court is inclined to hold that the petitioner is permitted to file an appeal before the appellate authority subject to payment of 10% over and above the 10% statutory deposit of disputed tax demand, as agreed by the petitioner, before the appellate authority, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. This writ petition is disposed of. 1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe core legal questions considered by the Court in this matter are:Whether the petitioner was entitled to have its rectification petition under Section 161 of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax (TNGST) Act, 2017, accepted and acted upon by the respondent authority, given that the assessment order was passed without considering the petitioner's reply to the show cause notice.Whether the petitioner's failure to file an appeal immediately after the passing of the assessment order, and instead filing a rectification petition, precludes the petitioner from subsequently filing an appeal before the appellate authority.Whether the Court should exercise its discretion to permit the petitioner to file a belated appeal despite the expiry of the statutory time limit, and if so, on what conditions such permission should be granted.2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSISIssue 1: Validity of the Assessment Order Passed Without Considering Petitioner's ReplyThe petitioner contended that the respondent issued a show cause notice and that the petitioner duly filed its reply. However, the impugned assessment order was passed without consideration of this reply, thereby violating principles of natural justice and statutory mandate under the TNGST Act, 2017.The legal framework relevant here includes the procedural requirements under the TNGST Act for passing assessment orders after considering the taxpayer's submissions. Precedents establish that an assessment order passed without considering the taxpayer's reply to a show cause notice is liable to be set aside as it violates principles of fair hearing.However, the respondent contended that the assessment order was passed after considering the petitioner's reply, and hence the order is valid. The Court noted the contention but did not delve deeply into the merits of this issue since the petitioner's primary grievance was the rejection of the rectification petition and the inability to file an appeal within time.The Court's approach was pragmatic, focusing on remedying procedural impediments rather than re-examining the assessment order's validity at this stage.Issue 2: Effect of Filing Rectification Petition Instead of Appeal on Time LimitsThe petitioner filed a rectification petition under Section 161 of the TNGST Act, 2017, immediately after the assessment order, under the bonafide impression that the issue could be rectified thereby. However, the rectification petition was rejected, and meanwhile, the time limit for filing an appeal expired.The legal framework prescribes a strict time limit for filing appeals against assessment orders. Filing a rectification petition does not extend or suspend this limitation period. Precedents consistently hold that the remedy of rectification is limited to correcting errors apparent on the face of the record and does not substitute or delay the statutory right to appeal.The respondent argued that the petitioner was not prevented from filing an appeal within the prescribed period and that the delay was self-inflicted by opting for the rectification petition route.The Court acknowledged this position but emphasized the importance of justice and fairness, especially where the petitioner acted in good faith and promptly sought rectification. The Court recognized that strict adherence to procedural timelines should not defeat substantive rights where the petitioner is willing to comply with conditions ensuring the respondent's interests are protected.Issue 3: Discretion to Permit Filing of Belated Appeal and Conditions ThereofGiven the petitioner's failure to file an appeal within time, the Court considered whether to exercise its discretion to permit a belated appeal.The legal framework allows courts to condone delay in filing appeals in appropriate cases, balancing the interests of the revenue and the taxpayer. The Court considered the petitioner's willingness to deposit 10% of the disputed tax amount in addition to the statutory 10% deposit as a condition to mitigate the revenue's risk.The respondent did not seriously object to this proposal, indicating a practical approach to resolving the dispute.The Court reasoned that permitting the appeal subject to such deposit conditions would serve the ends of justice, allowing the petitioner to have its grievance adjudicated on merits while safeguarding the revenue's interest.The Court thus directed that the petitioner be permitted to file the appeal within four weeks from the order's receipt, subject to payment of 20% of the disputed tax demand (10% statutory plus 10% additional). Upon such payment, the respondent must admit the appeal, provide the petitioner sufficient opportunity to present its case, and pass orders expeditiously and in accordance with law.3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGSThe Court held:'The petitioner is permitted to file an appeal before the appellate authority subject to payment of 10% over and above the 10% statutory deposit of disputed tax demand, as agreed by the petitioner, before the appellate authority, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.''On such payment being made, the respondent is directed to take the appeal on record and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law, after providing sufficient opportunity to the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible.'These directions establish the core principle that procedural lapses in filing appeals can be remedied by the Court's discretionary power, provided that the taxpayer complies with conditions protecting the revenue's interests.The Court balanced the strict procedural requirements under the TNGST Act with the equitable principle of providing an opportunity to be heard on merits, especially where the taxpayer acted in good faith and promptly sought rectification.Final determinations on the issues are:The assessment order's validity was not set aside, but the petitioner's grievance regarding non-consideration of its reply was acknowledged.The petitioner's failure to file appeal within time due to filing a rectification petition does not preclude the Court from permitting a belated appeal.The petitioner is allowed to file the appeal within a stipulated time frame subject to payment of an additional 10% deposit over the statutory 10%, ensuring protection of revenue interests.The respondent is mandated to admit the appeal and decide it on merits expeditiously after providing adequate opportunity to the petitioner.