M/S. Sri Dhariyam Ayurveda vs. The Appellate Deputy Commissioner

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Sri Dhariyam Ayurveda, filed a writ petition seeking a Mandamus to direct the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (State Tax) to receive and entertain their statutory appeal, condoning any delay. The petitioner had failed to respond to a show cause notice issued under Section 73, leading to an order dated 03.12.2025 for the tax period April 2021 to March 2022. The appeal was filed on 06.04.2026, after the stipulated period. At the time of filing, the petitioner had pre-deposited 10% of the disputed tax. The petitioner expressed willingness to deposit an additional 15% of the disputed tax.

Held

The Court held that while it could not direct the appeal to be disposed of on merits as it was beyond the condonable period of limitation, it could pass appropriate orders balancing the interests of the parties, as has been done in similar past circumstances. The Court directed the petitioner to deposit an additional 15% of the disputed tax, over and above the 10% already pre-deposited, in cash from their Electronic Cash Register within thirty days of receiving the order. Upon compliance, the first respondent was directed to proceed to pass fresh orders on the petitioner's appeal on merits and in accordance with law, expeditiously, preferably within three months of the deposit. The Court noted that any amount recovered or paid would be adjusted towards the pre-deposit, subject to verification. If the petitioner failed to comply, the first respondent was at liberty to recover the tax as if the writ petition was dismissed in limine. The first respondent was also required to provide due notice before passing any order.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Court can direct the first respondent to receive and entertain the petitioner's statutory appeal filed under Section 107 of the TNGST Act, 2017, by condoning the delay, considering the petitioner has already pre-deposited 10% of the disputed tax and is willing to deposit an additional 15%? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that they had already deposited 10% of the disputed tax and were willing to deposit an additional 15% within 30 days of the Court's order. They sought to have the assessment order remitted back for justice. Revenue's contention: The judgment records no specific argument from the respondents regarding the condonation of delay or the entertainability of the appeal beyond the limitation period. However, the State counsel took notice of the petition.