Tvl. Toptech Engineering Company Private Limited vs. The State Tax Officer-Inspection-Iv

Facts

The petitioner, Tvl. Toptech Engineering Company Private Ltd., filed a writ petition challenging an assessment order and Form GST DRC-07 issued by the respondent, The State Tax Officer-Inspection-IV. The petitioner failed to file an appeal within the prescribed time, and the condonable period had also expired. The delay in filing the appeal was stated to be marginal. The petitioner sought to quash the impugned order on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction.

Held

The Court acknowledged that the petitioner had failed to file an appeal within the statutory period and that the condonable time had also expired. However, considering the marginal delay and the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court decided to grant indulgence. The petitioner was directed to file an appeal before the appellate authority within seven days of receiving a copy of the order. Upon filing, the appeal was to be entertained without reference to the limitation period and disposed of on its merits. The Court also mandated that the petitioner must make a pre-deposit of 10% of the disputed tax amount as per Section 107 of the TNGST Act. It was noted that upon pre-deposit and entertainment of the appeal, the impugned assessment order would automatically be stayed. The writ petition was disposed of accordingly.

Key Issues

1. Whether the High Court, in its writ jurisdiction, should entertain a petition challenging an assessment order when the statutory remedy of appeal has not been availed within the prescribed time, including the condonable period? The petitioner argued that the impugned order was passed without jurisdiction and sought quashing of the same. The petitioner also contended that the delay in filing the appeal was marginal and that indulgence could be shown by the Court. The petitioner undertook to file an appeal within seven days of receiving the order. The respondent, represented by the Government Advocate, did not appear to have made any specific arguments on the merits of the case or the delay, but the Court proceeded to hear both sides.