Tvl. Amsan Marketing vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer

Facts

The petitioner, Tvl. Amsan Marketing, through its Proprietor Justus Rajan, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 01.04.2024, passed by the Deputy State Tax Officer, Nagercoil-Rural. The petitioner contended that they came to know about the impugned order only recently, by which time the period of limitation for filing an appeal had expired. The petitioner argued that the order was notified only through the online portal and not through physical service like registered post. The respondent, represented by the Additional Government Pleader, raised an objection regarding the availability of an alternative remedy.

Held

The Court held that the writ petition was a fit case to allow the petitioner to avail the remedy of appeal. The reasoning was primarily based on the fact that the impugned order, dated 01.04.2024, was notified to the petitioner only through the online portal, and there was no physical service of the order either by registered post or otherwise. This lack of proper notification, coupled with the petitioner's claim of recent discovery of the order leading to the expiry of the limitation period, persuaded the Court to grant relief. The Court's decision was influenced by the objection raised by the learned Additional Government Pleader regarding the availability of an alternative remedy, but it found sufficient grounds to permit the petitioner to pursue that remedy. The ratio decidendi is that where an assessee is not properly notified of an order and consequently misses the statutory appeal deadline, the High Court may, in its writ jurisdiction, allow them to prefer an appeal out of time, provided the circumstances warrant it. The Court directed the petitioner to file an appeal under Section 107 of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, within two weeks from the date of the order, and directed the appellate authority to entertain the appeal on merits without reference to the period of limitation.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner should be permitted to avail the alternative remedy of appeal despite the expiry of the limitation period, considering the circumstances of notification of the impugned order? The petitioner argued that they were unaware of the impugned order until the limitation period had lapsed. They specifically highlighted that the order was only made available through the online portal and no physical service was effected, which prevented them from filing an appeal within the stipulated time. The petitioner's counsel submitted that they would have approached the appellate authority but for this situation. The respondent, through the Additional Government Pleader, raised an objection concerning the availability of an alternative remedy, implying that the petitioner should have pursued the statutory appeal mechanism. The judgment does not record any specific arguments from the respondent regarding the merits of the petitioner's claim about the notification of the order or the limitation period.