M/S. Thotakura Venu Madhava Rao vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of State Taxes

Held

The High Court disposed of the writ petition by directing the petitioner to approach the appellate authority to comply with the conditions stipulated in Para 3 of the CBIC Notification dated November 2, 2023. Upon such compliance, the appellate authority was directed to consider the petitioner's pending appeal in accordance with the law. The Court acknowledged that the petitioner's appeal, when initially filed, was admittedly beyond the time limit. However, in view of the notification, if the petitioner fulfills the conditions under Para 3 and files an application to lift the attachment, the appellate authority will consider it and pass appropriate orders, keeping in view Section 107 of the Act and the notification. The Court also noted that the petitioner's argument regarding a deemed stay upon depositing 10% of the disputed amount was to be considered by the appellate authority in conjunction with the notification and Section 107.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Thotakura Venu Madhava Rao, challenged proceedings dated February 25, 2023, issued by the Assistant Commissioner of State Taxes (1st respondent) for the tax period April 2019 - March 2020. These proceedings determined tax liability based on discrepancies between GSTR-7 (TDS returns) and GSTR-3B, purportedly under Rule 142(5) read with Sections 73/74 of the Andhra Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner had filed an appeal with the Additional Commissioner of State Tax and Appellate Authority (2nd respondent) on August 18, 2023, which was rejected as being barred by limitation by 85 days. The petitioner also sought a direction for the appellate authority to admit the appeal and for the 5th respondent not to honor a recovery notice.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner's appeal, filed beyond the prescribed limitation period, can be admitted in light of the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) Notification dated November 2, 2023? (Question of law turning on Section 107 and Rule 108(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and CBIC Notification No. 53/2023-Central Tax). Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the appeal, though initially time-barred, should be deemed filed within time due to the aforementioned CBIC notification. They argued that the notification allows appeals filed on or before January 31, 2024, and that pending appeals before the notification's issuance are deemed filed if conditions in Para 3 are met. The petitioner stated readiness to comply with the deposit requirement of 12.5% of the remaining tax in dispute as per Para 3(b) of the notification. They also argued that having deposited 10% of the disputed tax at the time of filing the appeal, there should be a deemed stay on the disputed amount, despite which recovery proceedings were initiated. Respondents' arguments: The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the matter may be considered in view of the notification.