A1235 Madurai Taluk Agricultural Producers Coop Marketing Society vs. The State Tax Officer (St)

Facts

The petitioner, M/S.A1235 Madurai Taluk Agricultural Producers Coop Marketing Society, a registered society engaged in selling grocery items without profit motive, challenged an assessment order dated 02.11.2023 passed by the State Tax Officer for the assessment year 2017-18. The petitioner failed to reply to a notice (DRC 01) due to pending finalization of accounts. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a statutory appeal before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner on 09.04.2024, which was rejected on 06.05.2024 due to being filed beyond the condonable period of limitation by 30 days. The petitioner sought to quash the assessment order and direct the first respondent to pass a fresh order after affording an opportunity.

Held

The Court held that the petitioner, being a society engaged in public distribution service with marginal profit, should be given an opportunity to pursue its remedy before the Appellate Commissioner, despite the appeal being filed belatedly. The Court reasoned that considering the petitioner's status and the fact that they had deposited 10% of the disputed tax, it was appropriate to direct the Appellate Authority to consider the appeal on merits. The Court directed the second respondent (Appellate Deputy Commissioner) to dispose of the petitioner's appeal on merits and in accordance with law, without reference to the limitation period, and to afford the petitioner a hearing before passing fresh orders. The assessment order passed by the first respondent was not explicitly quashed but the direction to the second respondent implies a fresh consideration of the matter.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Appellate Deputy Commissioner was justified in rejecting the petitioner's statutory appeal on the grounds of limitation, considering the nature of the petitioner's operations and the circumstances leading to the delay? The petitioner argued that due to the nature of its public distribution service and the delay in finalizing accounts, the appeal was filed belatedly. They contended that the Appellate Authority should have considered these circumstances and condoned the delay. The petitioner relied on its status as a society engaged in public distribution service for a marginal profit. The respondents, represented by the State Tax Officer and the Appellate Deputy Commissioner, argued that the appeal was filed beyond the statutory period of limitation and therefore liable for rejection. They did not present specific arguments against the petitioner's claim of being a public distribution service provider but focused on the procedural aspect of limitation.