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 before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court challenging an assessment order and Form GST DRC-07 issued by the respondent, The State Tax Officer-Inspection-IV. The petitioner had not filed an appeal against the assessment order within the prescribed time, and the condonable period for delay had also expired. The delay in filing the appeal was stated to be marginal. The petitioner sought to quash the impugned order as being without jurisdiction.

Held

The Court, considering the facts and circumstances, decided to grant indulgence to the petitioner. It directed that the petitioner undertake to file an appeal before the appellate authority within seven days from the receipt of a copy of the order. Upon filing, the appeal shall be entertained without reference to the limitation period and disposed of on merits. The Court also stipulated that the petitioner must make a pre-deposit of 10% of the disputed tax amount as per Section 107 of the TNGST Act. Once the pre-deposit is made and the appeal is filed and entertained, the impugned assessment order would be automatically stayed. The writ petition was disposed of accordingly.

Key Issues

1. Whether the High Court, in its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, should entertain a petition to quash an assessment order when the statutory remedy of appeal was not availed within the prescribed time, and the condonable period has expired? (Question of law and procedure) Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the delay in filing the appeal was marginal and that indulgence could be shown by the Court. They sought to have their appeal entertained by the appellate authority without reference to limitation. Respondent's contention: The respondent did not explicitly record any arguments against entertaining the writ petition or allowing the petitioner to file a delayed appeal. The judgment notes that the petitioner suffered an assessment order and did not prefer an appeal in time, and the condonable time had expired.