Viha Hotels Private Limited vs. Assistant Commissioner Of GST And Central Excise
Original PDF →Facts
The appellant, M/s. Viha Hotels Private Limited, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 30.01.2025 passed by the respondent, the Assistant Commissioner of GST and Central Excise, levying penalty. The learned Single Judge had directed the appellant to approach the appellate authority. The appellant had previously filed a statutory appeal but withdrew it before the writ petition was heard. The Single Judge permitted the appellant to re-file the appeal within 15 days. The appellant is aggrieved by this order and has filed the present writ appeal. The appellant had paid the entire tax amount and interest, albeit after discovery by the officer but before the payment deadline. The cause of action arose before the amendment to Section 107 of the CGST Act.
Held
The Court allowed the appellant to file a fresh appeal before the appellate authority within three months from the date of receipt of the judgment. This appeal will be entertained without reference to limitation. Crucially, the Court directed that the appeal be entertained without insisting on the payment of 10% of the penalty, given that the entire tax amount and interest had been remitted and the cause of action arose before the amendment to Section 107 of the CGST Act. The Court explicitly stated that it had not gone into the merits of the matter and that all contentions and defenses of the appellant were left open. The appellate authority is to dispose of the appeal on merits within three months of its filing. The Court clarified that this order is not to be treated as a precedent.
Key Issues
1. Whether the appellant can be permitted to re-file a statutory appeal before the appellate authority, considering the prior withdrawal and the subsequent amendment to Section 107 of the CGST Act, which mandates payment of 10% of the penalty for filing an appeal. Petitioner's arguments: The appellant contended that the cause of action arose before the amendment to Section 107 of the CGST Act. They also submitted that the entire tax and interest had been paid. They sought permission to re-file the appeal, emphasizing the special facts and circumstances. Revenue's arguments: The respondent argued that in view of the amendment to Section 107 of the CGST Act, the appellant must pay a sum equal to 10% of the penalty to file an appeal.
Sections Cited
Section 107
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
JUDGMENT (By G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.) Heard both sides. 2.The appellant herein filed W.P.(MD)No.15360 of 2025 assailing the order dated 30.01.2025 passed by the respondent levying penalty. The learned Single Judge relegated the appellant to go before the appellate authority. It is seen that the appellant had earlier filed statutory appeal but withdrew the same before the writ petition came up for hearing. The learned Single Judge permitted the appellant to re-file the appeal. Paragraph No.9 of the order of the learned Single Judge reads as follows:- “9. At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the petitioner has filed a statutory appeal today, but has withdrawn the same. Since this Court is of the view that the appeal is maintainable, the petitioner is permitted to re-file the appeal within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioner shall comply with the requirements of the respective GST enactments as in force along with the application. Aggrieved by the same, this writ appeal has been filed. 2/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
The learned standing counsel for the department submitted that in view of the amendment made to Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, for filing an appeal, the appellant has to pay a sum equal to 10% of penalty. 4.In the case on hand, admittedly, the appellant had paid the entire tax amount and interest. The learned counsel for the appellant states that the tax was paid though after discovery by the officer but well before the last date for making payment. It is also seen that the cause of action arose before the amendment was made to Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act. 5.Considering the special facts and circumstances obtaining in this case, we permit the appellant herein to file a fresh appeal before the appellate authority within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Such an appeal will be entertained by the authority without reference to limitation. Since the entire tax amount and interest had already been remitted and since the cause of action arose 3/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis before the amendment was made, the appeal shall be entertained without insisting that the appellant should pay a sum equal to 10% of the penalty. We make it clear that we have not gone into the merits of the matter. All the contentions and defences of the appellant are left open. If the appellant files the appeal within the time stipulated above, the same shall be disposed of on merits and in accordance with law within a period of three months thereafter. We clarify that this order shall not be treated as a precedent. 6.With the aforesaid liberty to the appellant, this writ appeal is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. (G.R.S. J.,) & (K.R.S. J.,) 04.07.2025 NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/ No ias 4/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 5/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J. and K.RAJASEKAR, J. ias
2025 6/6 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.