M/S. Trichy Tass Recreation Club vs. The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (St)

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Trichy Tass Recreation Club, filed four writ petitions challenging the rejection of their appeals by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (ST). The appeals were filed against assessment orders dated February 17, 2024, passed by the State Tax Officer for tax periods January 2020 - March 2020, April 2020 - March 2021, April 2021 - March 2022, and April 2022 – October 2022. The Appellate Commissioner rejected the appeals in limine as they were filed beyond the condonable period of limitation under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017. The petitioner had participated in the assessment proceedings, including replying to show cause notices and appearing for personal hearings, but failed to file the appeals within the prescribed time. The petitioner had already deposited 10% of the disputed tax at the time of filing the appeals.

Held

The Court held that while the appeals were filed beyond the condonable period of limitation under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017, the delay was marginal, approximately 18 days. The Court noted that the petitioner had participated in the assessment proceedings and had already deposited 10% of the disputed tax at the time of filing the appeals. Considering these factors, the Court was inclined to provide relief to the petitioner. The Court directed the petitioner to deposit an additional 20% of the disputed tax within 30 days of receiving the order. Upon such deposit, the Appellate Commissioner was directed to entertain the appeals and decide them on merits, without reference to the limitation period. The Court expressly did not decide on the merits of the assessment orders themselves.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Appellate Commissioner was justified in rejecting the appeals filed by the petitioner in limine on the ground of being beyond the condonable period of limitation under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017, despite the petitioner having participated in the assessment proceedings and the delay being marginal? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner argued that they should be given an opportunity to have their grievances redressed before the Appellate Commissioner without reference to the limitation period. They also stated their willingness to deposit 25% of the disputed tax, as done by similarly placed assessees. Respondents' Argument: The respondents contended that the writ petitions were devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed.