Tvl. M/S. Ambresh And Co vs. Deputy State Tax Officer (St)
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Tvl. M/s. Ambresh & Co., a government contractor, is challenging an assessment order dated 20.04.2023 passed by the Deputy State Tax Officer. The petitioner had rendered services to government departments and paid tax. A portion of the tax was deducted by the department and reflected in Form GSTR-07. The department later realized the petitioner had not paid the full tax and recovered the amount from the petitioner, acknowledged in DRC 03 dated 08.08.2022. The petitioner filed a writ petition on 29.04.2024, approximately one year and nine days after the impugned order, without filing a statutory appeal.
Held
The Court held that the petitioner had an alternative statutory remedy by way of filing an appeal under Section 107 of the respective GST enactment before the Appellate Commissioner. The Court noted that the petitioner had failed to file this statutory appeal within the prescribed time, as the impugned order was dated 20.04.2023 and the writ petition was filed approximately one year and nine days later. The Court found no merit in the writ petition on this ground. However, considering that the amount had already been recovered from the petitioner as evidenced by Form GST DRC-03 dated 08.08.2022, the Court granted liberty to the petitioner to file the statutory appeal on merits within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order. The ratio is that while statutory remedies must generally be exhausted, courts may grant liberty to file appeals out of time in exceptional circumstances, especially when amounts have already been recovered.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioner has an alternative statutory remedy against the impugned assessment order, and if so, whether the writ petition is maintainable. (Section 107 of the GST enactment) The petitioner argued that they had sufficient amount in their electronic credit ledger and therefore, personal appearance was not necessary. They also contended that the amount was not reflected in their regular GSTR-3B return as no amount was received at that time, and it was accounted for later after tax payment. The respondent (revenue) argued that the petitioner failed to file a statutory appeal under Section 107 of the respective GST enactment before the Appellate Commissioner, and the time for filing such an appeal had expired.
Sections Cited
Section 107, Rule 61, Section 15
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Before: and
The petitioner appears to be a Government contractor, who had rendered service to the Government Departments. It appears that the petitioner had paid the tax, although a portion of the tax payable by the petitioner was deducted by the concerned department and was reflected in Form GSTR-07 under Rule 61 of the TNGST Rules, 2017 read with Section 15 of the TNGST Act, 2017. Later, the department realised that the petitioner had not paid tax and had recovered the amount from the petitioner and acknowledged the same in DRC 03 dated 08.08.2022. 2. It is noticed that the impugned order was passed on 20.04.2023, however, the petitioner has failed to file an appeal against the impugned order. 2/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner had sufficient amount in the electronic credit ledger and therefore, the petitioner need not be visited in person. A query as to whether the petitioner failed to pay monthly tax as is contemplated. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the amount was not reflected in the regular return filed by the petitioner in GSTR-3B as no amount received and that the amount was later accounted for after the payment of the tax.
Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondent, this Court is of the view that there is no merit in the present Writ Petition. If at all, the petitioner ought to have filed statutory appeal under Section 107 of the respective GST enactment before the Appellate Commissioner. The time for filing appeal has already expired as the impugned order is dated 20.04.2023 and the Writ Petition has been filed exactly one year and nine days later on 29.04.2024. 5. Considering the fact that the amount has already been recovered from the petitioner on 08.08.2022 as it is evident from Form GST DRC -03, this Court is 3/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis inclined to give liberty to the petitioner to file statutory appeal on merits and in accordance with law within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. This Writ Petition is disposed of with above directions. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Index : Yes / No 05.06.2024 Internet : Yes / No apd To Deputy State Tax Officer (ST), Westveli Street Circle, Madurai. 4/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.SARAVANAN, J.
apd
2024 5/5 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.