Antoney Selvan. M vs. The State Tax Officer, (SGST) (Fac)
Original PDF →Facts
Three writ petitions were filed before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court challenging assessment orders passed by GST authorities for different tax periods. In W.P.(MD) No. 20925 of 2023, M. Antoney Selvan challenged an order dated 08.03.2023 for the period 2019-2020. In W.P.(MD) No. 1461 of 2024, Tvl. Sri Rajalakshmi Blue Metal challenged an order dated 21.07.2023 for the period 2020-2021. In W.P.(MD) No. 3158 of 2024, M/s. Kumar Agencies challenged an order dated 18.10.2023 for the period 2017-2018. In all cases, the petitioners had filed replies to show cause notices but failed to file appeals within the prescribed time limit. The respondents opposed the writ petitions, citing Supreme Court decisions regarding the availability of alternative remedies.
Held
The Court held that while the petitioners had failed to file appeals within the stipulated time, they could still approach the Appellate Commissioner. The Court directed the petitioners to deposit 25% of the disputed tax from their Electronic Cash Register within 30 days of receiving the order. This deposit includes the mandatory 10% required under Section 107 of the GST Act and an additional 15% for approaching the High Court after the expiry of the limitation period. Subject to this deposit, the Appellate Commissioner was directed to examine and decide the petitioners' appeals on merits, without reference to the limitation period. The Court did not decide the substantive questions of law raised by the petitioners.
Key Issues
1. Whether the High Court should entertain writ petitions challenging assessment orders when the petitioners have failed to file timely appeals before the Appellate Commissioner, as per Section 107 of the GST Act? The petitioners argued that the assessment orders were illegal and devoid of merits and sought quashing of the same, with a direction to redo the assessment proceedings. They also made submissions on questions of law. The revenue/State contended that the writ petitions were devoid of merits in light of the Supreme Court decisions in Assistant Commissioner (CT), LTU, Kakinada and others vs. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limited and M/s. Singh Enterprises vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jamshedpur and others, which held that writ petitions are not maintainable when alternative remedies are available and the period of limitation for appeal has expired.
Sections Cited
Section 107
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Heard together (3 matters)
Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
COMMON ORDER In these Writ Petitions, the petitioners have challenged the following impugned orders passed by the respondents for the respective Assessment Years. Sl. No. W.P. (MD)No. Petitioner Impugned Order No. Date Assessment Year 1. 20925 / 2023 M.Antoney Selvan GSTIN : 33ALEPA9443N1 ZZ/2019-20 08.03.2023 2019 - 2020 _____________ Page No. 3 of 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1461 / 2024 Tvl.
Sri Rajalakshm i
Blue Metal GSTIN : 33ADNFS6454L1 ZH/2020-21 21.07.2023 2020 - 2021 3. 3158 / 2024 M/s.Kumar Agencies DIN : 20231059XO0000 999B38 - Order- in-Original 09/2023 GST 18.10.2023 2017 - 2018
In all these Writ Petitions, the petitioners have replied to the show cause notice, but have failed to file an appeal in time.
These Writ Petitions are opposed by the learned Government Advocate for the respondent in W.P.(MD)Nos.20925 of 2023 and 1461 of 2024 and the learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondent in W.P. (MD)No.3158 of 2024 on the ground that the Writ Petitions are devoid of merits in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in also be time barred in terms of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/s.Singh Enterprises vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, _____________ Page No. 4 of 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Jamshedpur and others, (2008) 3 SCC 70. It is therefore submitted that these Writ Petitions are liable to be dismissed.
I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.
Although the learned counsel for the petitioners would make submissions on the questions of law at this stage, I am of the view that the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners on the questions of law cannot be entertained, save that the petitioners can be given liberty to work out their remedy before the Appellate Commissioner namely, the Deputy Appellate Commissioner under Section 107 of the GST Act subject to the petitioners depositing 25% of the disputed tax [10% being the mandatory requirement under Section 107 of the GST Act and 15% for approaching this Court for the remedy long after the limitation has expired].
In fine, the respective petitioners shall deposit 25% of the disputed tax from the Electronic Cash Register within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Subject to the above, the _____________ Page No. 5 of 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis petitioners' appeal shall be examined and decided on merits without reference to limitation.
These Writ Petitions stand disposed of with the above observation. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. Index : Yes/ No 01.07.2024 Neutral Citation: Yes / No Speaking Order / Non-Speaking Order smn2 To 1.The State Tax Officer (SGST) (FAC), Tiruchendur, Thoothukudi District. 2.The State Tax Officer, Ambasamudram Assessment Circle, Tirunelveli. 3.The Assistant Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise, Madurai-I Division, No.5, V.P. Rathinasamy Nadar Road, Bibikulam, Madurai – 625 002. _____________ Page No. 6 of 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.SARAVANAN
, J.
smn2 Common order in 01.07.2024 _____________ Page No. 7 of 7 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.