Tvl. M. Sannasi vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)

Facts

The petitioner, TVL. M. Sannasi, a contractor, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 26.12.2023 passed by the Assistant Commissioner (ST), Theni, under Section 73 of the TNGST Act, 2017, for the assessment year 2017-18. The impugned order was passed due to the petitioner's failure to file returns in time, resulting in the levy of late fees for non-filing of the GSTR 9 annual report. The petitioner contended that the order was cryptic, non-speaking, barred by limitation, illegal, arbitrary, and without jurisdiction. The petitioner also stated that the order was not formally communicated but only uploaded to the web portal. The petitioner undertook to file an appeal within four weeks of receiving a copy of the High Court's order.

Held

The Court acknowledged that the impugned order was appealable. It noted that the order was not formally communicated to the petitioner but was only uploaded to the web portal. Consequently, the Court held that the limitation period for filing an appeal would commence only from the date the petitioner became aware of the order. The petitioner undertook to file an appeal within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the High Court's order. The Court directed that if such an appeal is filed within the stipulated time, it shall be entertained without reference to the limitation period and disposed of on merits and in accordance with law, subject to the petitioner complying with other procedural formalities. Upon numbering of the appeal, any attachment made on the petitioner's bank account shall be lifted forthwith and without delay. The Court did not decide on the merits of the original order itself, focusing on the procedural aspects and the petitioner's undertaking to appeal.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order dated 26.12.2023, passed under Section 73 of the TNGST Act, 2017, is liable to be quashed on grounds of being cryptic, non-speaking, barred by limitation, illegal, arbitrary, and without jurisdiction? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the impugned order was cryptic, non-speaking, and therefore illegal. They also contended that the order was barred by limitation. Furthermore, the petitioner asserted that the order was passed without jurisdiction and was arbitrary. A key procedural argument was that the order was not formally communicated but merely uploaded to the web portal, implying that the limitation period for appeal should commence only from the date the petitioner became aware of the order. Respondent's Arguments: The respondent, the Assistant Commissioner (ST), Theni, did not present any arguments in the provided text. The judgment states "Heard both sides," but the respondent's specific contentions are not recorded.