M/S.Matha Agency vs. The Commercial Tax Officer

Held

The Court held that the petitioner's contention that no effective alternative remedy is available under Section 107 cannot be accepted. The Court reasoned that if the petitioner believes the rectification application was wrongly rejected, the original order merges with the rectification order, allowing a statutory appeal under Section 107 against the rectification order. Alternatively, if the original order has not merged, Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, would apply, allowing the time spent pursuing the remedy bona fide before the respondent under Section 161 to be excluded for calculating the appeal period. The Court granted liberty to the petitioner to file a statutory appeal before the Appellate Commissioner within fifteen days from the receipt of the order, excluding the period spent before the respondent. The Appellate Commissioner was directed to consider and dispose of the appeal on its merits. The petitioner was also directed to deposit 10% of the disputed tax if not already recovered. No issue was expressly left undecided.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Matha Agency, challenged an order dated 12.02.2025 passed by the Commercial Tax Officer, Karaikudi Assessment Circle, under Section 73 of the GST enactments for the tax period April 2020 to March 2021. The petitioner also challenged a subsequent rectification order dated 09.04.2025, which partly allowed and partly rejected their rectification application filed under Section 161. The petitioner contended that the impugned orders were without jurisdiction and in violation of statutory provisions, and that their representation had not been duly considered. The respondent argued that the petitioner had an alternative remedy under Section 107 of the GST enactments.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner has an effective alternative remedy under Section 107 of the GST enactments, considering the impugned orders and the rectification order? 2. Whether the petitioner's contention that the limitation for filing an appeal against the order dated 12.02.2025, as reaffirmed by the order dated 09.04.2025, would be barred by limitation is valid? Petitioner's arguments: The impugned order is liable to be quashed as the petitioner's representation has not been duly considered. The petitioner also contended that the limitation for filing an appeal against the order dated 12.02.2025, insofar as the demand reaffirmed by the order dated 09.04.2025, would now be barred by limitation, implying a lack of effective remedy. Respondent's arguments: The petitioner has an alternative remedy under Section 107 of the respective GST enactments.