Tvl. Andavar Agencies vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner challenged an assessment order rejecting their Input Tax Credit (ITC) claim because the supplier allegedly did not remit taxes. The petitioner also faced difficulties accessing the web portal for the order.
Held
The Court permitted the petitioner to file a statutory appeal, condoning the delay, subject to depositing 25% of the disputed tax amount. The appeal is to be considered on merits after hearing the petitioner.
Key Issues
Whether the petitioner should be allowed to file a delayed statutory appeal against the assessment order rejecting ITC, and if so, under what conditions.
Sections Cited
Section 16(2)(c), Section 50(3), Section 107
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Before: and
The present writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order of assessment, dated 20.10.2023, whereby, the petitioner's claim for Input Tax Credit was rejected on the premise that, the supplier has not remitted the taxes to the Government after collecting the same from the petitioner, thereby, rendering the petitioner ineligible to avail Input Tax Credit in terms of Section 16(2)(c) of the GST Act.
The respondent has issued a notice alleging that the petitioner had availed excess ITC and directing the same be paid along with interest under Section 50(3) of the TNGST Act, 2017 and CGST Act, 2017. A detailed reply was filed by the petitioner, wherein, it was submitted that the difference between GSTR-2A and GSTR-3B is only in view of the fact that, excess taxes were paid by the petitioner for the months of July and August 2022, which was sought to be adjusted in the subsequent months. However, the same was rejected by the adjudicating authority and the impugned order has been passed. 2/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order of assessment was uploaded in the web portal and the petitioner had difficulty in accessing the portal. The learned counsel for the petitioner would place reliance upon the recent judgment of this Court in the case of M/s.K.Balakrishnan, Balu Cables vs. O/o. the Assistant Commissioner of GST & Central Excise in W.P.(MD)No.11924 of 2024 dated 10.06.2024, wherein, this Court was pleased to permit the petitioner to file statutory appeal, though the limitation period prescribed for filing an appeal in terms of Section 107, had expired prior to filing of the Writ Petition, subject to the condition that the petitioner depositing 25% of the disputed tax amount. It was thus submitted that the petitioner may be permitted to file an appeal and he is ready and willing to make deposit 25% of the tax that are due, as a condition for entertaining the appeal. The same is also not seriously objected to by the learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondent.
Taking into account the above submissions, this Court is inclined to permit the petitioner to file statutory appeal together with the deposit of 25% of the tax that are due, within a period of three (3) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If any such appeal is filed along with the above deposit, 3/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis the same shall be entertained without reference to the period of limitation and orders shall be passed in accordance with law after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition stands closed. 13.08.2024 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes BTR To The Assistant Commissioner (ST), Sivakasi-1 Assessment Circle, Commercial Taxes Building, N.G.O Colony, Satchiyapuram, Sivakasi-626 124. 4/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ
, J.
BTR
2024
5/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Reproduced from the public record of the Madras High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.