M/S.Butyful Products And Services P LTD. vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)

Facts

The petitioner, M/s.Butyful Products and Services Private Ltd., filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 03.07.2025 passed by the 2nd Respondent, the Deputy Commissioner (GST-Appeal). The 2nd Respondent had dismissed the petitioner's appeal against an assessment order dated 25.01.2025, passed by the 1st Respondent, the Assistant Commissioner (ST), on the grounds of limitation. The petitioner sought to quash both orders and requested a fresh order after affording an opportunity for a personal hearing. The delay in filing the appeal before the appellate authority was noted as marginal.

Held

The Court held that the delay in filing the appeal before the appellate authority was marginal and that the writ petitioner had arguable points to canvass. In the interest of justice, the Court quashed the order of the appellate authority dated 03.07.2025. The appellate authority was directed to number the appeal and dispose of it on its merits and in accordance with law. The Court found that dismissing the appeal on limitation without considering the merits, especially when the delay was marginal, would be unjust. The reasoning implies that a substantial delay might warrant dismissal, but a marginal delay should not preclude an examination of the substantive issues. The ratio decidendi is that marginal delays in statutory appeals should not automatically lead to dismissal if arguable points exist, and principles of natural justice, including the opportunity to be heard, should be upheld.

Key Issues

1. Whether the appellate authority was justified in dismissing the petitioner's appeal solely on the grounds of marginal delay, without considering the merits of the case, thereby violating principles of natural justice? (Mixed question of law and fact, concerning Section 107 of the TNGST Act, 2017 and principles of natural justice). Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the delay in filing the appeal was marginal and that they had arguable points to present before the appellate authority. They contended that the appellate authority's order was cryptic and non-speaking, and that they were denied an opportunity for a personal hearing as contemplated under Section 75(4) of the TNGST Act, 2017. Respondents' contention: The respondents, represented by the Government Advocate, did not explicitly record any arguments in the judgment regarding the dismissal on limitation grounds or the denial of personal hearing.