Tvl Koshik World vs. The State Tax Officer

Facts

The petitioner, Tvl Koshik World, filed a writ petition challenging an assessment order dated 18.06.2025 passed by the respondent, the State Tax Officer. The petitioner had received a notice in DRC-01 dated 12.09.2024, filed a reply, and participated in a personal hearing. Subsequently, the disputed tax amount was recovered. The petitioner sought to quash the assessment order and direct the respondent to pass a fresh order after affording an opportunity of being heard. The petitioner's primary contention was that due to the negligence of their consultant, they remained unaware of the assessment order and therefore could not file an appeal within the prescribed time limit, requesting condonation of delay and liberty to file an appeal.

Held

The Court held that the petitioner's reason for the delay in challenging the assessment order was not acceptable. It was noted that the petitioner had participated in the proceedings, including filing a reply and attending a personal hearing, before the assessment order was passed on 18.06.2025. The Court found it improper for the petitioner to subsequently claim unawareness of the order, especially when the tax amount had already been recovered. The Court emphasized that it is the assessee's duty to verify the GST web portal for subsequent developments. Given that no steps were taken by the petitioner to challenge the order for approximately 8 months after its passing, and the reason provided was deemed unacceptable, the Court found no merit in the petitioner's submission. Consequently, the Court declined to grant the liberty requested by the petitioner to file an appeal and dismissed the writ petition.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner's plea of being unaware of the assessment order, despite participating in the proceedings, is a valid ground to seek condonation of delay in filing an appeal against the assessment order dated 18.06.2025, thereby violating principles of natural justice and Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017, read with relevant rules concerning appeal filing timelines? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that due to the negligence of their consultant, they were unaware of the assessment order and thus could not file an appeal within the stipulated time. They requested the Court to condone this delay and grant them liberty to file an appeal. Respondent's arguments: The respondent contended that the petitioner had duly filed a reply to the show cause notice and participated in the personal hearing. Therefore, it was not proper for the petitioner to claim unawareness of the assessment order. The reason assigned for the delay was deemed unacceptable, and the respondent prayed for the dismissal of the petition.