V.K.K. Super Digital Cables vs. The Appellate Deputy Commissioner
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, V.K.K.Super Digital Cables, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 10.05.2024 passed by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (GST Appeals). This order rejected the petitioner's appeal against an Order-in-Original dated 21.12.2023 passed by the Deputy State Tax Officer -I. The rejection was based on the ground that the appeal was filed beyond the statutory period of limitation under Section 107 of the TNGST Act, 2017. The appeal was filed on 24.04.2024, and the limitation period, including a condonable period of 30 days, would have expired by 19.04.2023. The tax in dispute amounts to Rs.5,90,700.92 (CGST & SGST), along with interest and penalty.
Held
The Court held that while the Appellate Deputy Commissioner, as a statutory authority, is bound by the provisions of limitation, the petitioner may have a case on merits. The dispute arose due to discrepancies between the petitioner's returns and the GSTR 2A/2B data. Considering the marginal delay of only 5 days beyond the condonable period and the potential merits of the case, the Court directed the Appellate Deputy Commissioner to decide the appeal on its merits and in accordance with law, without reference to the limitation period. The reasoning is that no assessee would deliberately delay filing an appeal if they are aggrieved by an order. The impugned order rejecting the appeal was quashed, and the matter was remanded to the first respondent for fresh consideration on merits.
Key Issues
1. Whether the Appellate Deputy Commissioner was justified in rejecting the petitioner's appeal solely on the grounds of limitation under Section 107 of the TNGST Act, 2017, despite a marginal delay of 5 days beyond the condonable period? The petitioner argued that the delay was marginal and that the dispute arose from a variance between their filed returns and the auto-populated information in GSTR 2A and GSTR 2B, suggesting a potential case on merits. They contended that the Appellate Authority should have decided the appeal on its merits rather than dismissing it on a technicality of limitation. The respondents, represented by the Additional Government Pleader, argued that the Appellate Deputy Commissioner, as a statutory authority, was duty-bound to comply with the provisions relating to limitation. They implicitly supported the rejection of the appeal on the grounds of exceeding the statutory time limit.
Sections Cited
Section 107
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Before: and
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents.
The petitioner is before this Court against the impugned order dated 10.05.2024 rejecting the petitioner's appeals against the Order-in-Original dated 21.12.2023 passed by the second respondent for the assessment year 2017-18. 3. The appeal has been rejected by Office of the first respondent duly signed by the Deputy Commissioner (CT) on the ground that it is beyond the statutory period of limitation under Section 107 of the TNGST Act, 2017. 4. It is noticed that the appeal made before the first respondent is dated 24.04.2024. Though the limitation for filing an appeal under Section 107 GST would have expired on or before 20.03.2023, the petitioner had another 30 days 2/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis period for filing of application to condone the delay upto 19.04.2023 explaining sufficient cause to condone the delay. Hence, there is a marginal delay of only 5 days in filing the appeal beyond the condonable period.
Prima facie, the Court is of the view that the order rejecting the appeal cannot be faulted as the second respondent is statutory authority and duty bound to comply with the provisions relating to limitation. At the same time, it is noticed that the petitioner may have a case on merits as the dispute arose on account of the variance between the Returns filed by the petitioner and the inward supply in GSTR 2A and the auto populated information in GSTR 2B.
The Court is of the view that the first respondent can dispose of the appeal on merits as no assessee will gain by deliberately delaying in filing the appeal where such assessee is aggrieved by the order passed by the Original Authority.
The amount of tax confirmed on the petitioner is Rs.5,90,700.92/- (Rs.2,95,350.46/- each towards SGST & CGST). Apart from the above, the 3/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis petitioner has also been imposed with interest and penalty.
Considering the fact that the petitioner may have a case on merits, the Court is of the view that there can be a positive direction to the first respondent to dispose of the appeal on merits and in accordance with law without reference to limitation. This Writ Petition is disposed of with above directions. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Index : Yes / No 30.07.2024 Internet : Yes / No apd To 1.The Appellate Deputy Commissioner, GST Appeals, Commercial Taxes Building, Reserve Line Road, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli. 2.The Deputy State Tax Officer -I, Sivakasi-II, Sivakasi, Virudhunagar. 4/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.SARAVANAN, J.
apd
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.