Tvl. Ginu Construction vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer 2
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Tvl.Ginu Construction, challenged an assessment order dated 08.01.2024 for the year 2021-2022, passed by the Deputy State Tax Officer - 2 (first respondent). The petitioner filed an appeal before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (ST) (second respondent) on 05.04.2024. However, due to inadvertence, the required 10% pre-deposit amount was not paid at the time of filing the appeal. Consequently, the second respondent, vide an order dated 29.11.2024, rejected the appeal for non-compliance with Section 107(6)(b) of the GST Act, without providing a sufficient opportunity for a personal hearing. The petitioner contended this violated the principles of natural justice.
Held
The Court held that the petitioner's failure to deposit the pre-deposit amount at the time of filing the appeal was due to inadvertence. In the interest of justice, the Court directed the petitioner to deposit the required pre-deposit amount within two weeks of receiving the order. Upon payment, the second respondent was directed to restore the appeal on file and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law, after providing the petitioner with a due opportunity of hearing. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided. The ratio decidendi is that procedural lapses due to inadvertence, especially when they lead to denial of a hearing, can be condoned in the interest of justice, provided the statutory pre-deposit is subsequently made.
Key Issues
1. Whether the rejection of the petitioner's appeal by the second respondent, for failure to pay the 10% pre-deposit amount at the time of filing, is in gross violation of the principles of natural justice, particularly concerning the lack of a personal hearing? (Question of law and fact, turning on Section 107(6)(b) of the GST Act). Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the rejection order was passed without providing a sufficient opportunity of hearing, which is a gross violation of the principles of natural justice. They attributed the non-payment of the pre-deposit to inadvertence. Respondents' arguments: The respondents contended that the rejection order was in accordance with Section 107(6)(b) of the GST Act, which mandates the payment of the pre-deposit as a condition precedent for the hearing of an appeal. They asserted that the petitioner's failure to comply with this statutory requirement justified the rejection of the appeal.
Sections Cited
Section 107(6)(b)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Before: and
This writ petition has been filed challenging the assessment order passed by the first respondent, dated 08.01.2024, for the year 2021-2022 and the consequential order passed by the second respondent, dated 29.11.2024. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, aggrieved by the impugned assessment order passed by the first respondent on 08.01.2024 for the year 2021-2022, has filed an appeal on 05.04.2024 before the second respondent within the prescribed time limit. However, 10% of the pre- deposit amount was not paid to the Department at the time of filing the appeal due to inadvertence. As a result, the second respondent passed rejection order on 29.11.2024, stating that the pre-deposit amount was not paid by the petitioner as ____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis per Section 107(6)(b) of the GST Act, without providing sufficient opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, which is in gross violation of the principles of natural justice.
Mr.J.K.Jayaselan, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents submits that the rejection order passed by the second respondent is in accordance with the provisions of the GST Act, specifically Section 107(6)(b), which mandates the payment of the pre-deposit amount as a condition precedent for the hearing of the appeal. The petitioner has failed to comply with this statutory requirement by not paying the pre-deposit amount at the time of filing the appeal. The failure to make the pre-deposit within the prescribed time limit is a clear violation of the statutory provisions and thus, the rejection of the appeal is justified. Furthermore, the petitioner had sufficient opportunity to make the pre- deposit and cannot now seek to bypass this requirement.
Heard both sides. ____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
After considering the submissions of both parties, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner's failure to deposit the pre-deposit amount at the time of filing the appeal was due to inadvertence. In the interest of justice, the petitioner is directed to deposit the required pre-deposit amount within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Upon receipt of such payment, the second respondent is directed to restore the appeal on file and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law, after giving due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, within a period of two months thereafter. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. NCC : Yes / No
2025 Index : Yes / No smn2 To:- 1.The Deputy State Tax Officer - 2, Tuticorin III Assessment Circle, Tuticorin. 2.The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (ST), GST Appeal, Tirunelveli Camp Office, Tirunelveli. ____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis VIVEK KUMAR SINGH
, J.
smn2
2025 ____________ 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.