Jashwin Auto Services vs. The State Tax Officer - (Inspection- 3)

Held

The Court held that the delay of 9 days in filing the appeal was marginal. Consequently, the Court directed the second respondent to admit the petitioner's appeal and dispose of it on its merits, without reference to the limitation period. The Court also stated that any amount collected during the interregnum would be subject to adjustment based on the outcome of the appeal before the second respondent. The writ petition was disposed of accordingly. The Court did not explicitly decide on the legality of the assessment order itself, as the primary issue addressed was the condonation of delay in filing the appeal.

Facts

The petitioner, Tvl. Jashwin Auto Services, filed a writ petition challenging an assessment order dated 06.03.2025 passed by the first respondent (State Tax Officer) under Section 74 of the TNGST Act, 2017, for the assessment year 2018-19. The petitioner also challenged the consequential appellate rejection order dated 16.07.2025 passed by the second respondent (Appellate Deputy Commissioner) and a communication dated 23.07.2025 from the first respondent. The appellate rejection order was issued because the petitioner's appeal was filed beyond the condonable period of limitation. The petitioner contended that the appeal was filed with a marginal delay of 9 days.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Appellate Deputy Commissioner was justified in rejecting the petitioner's appeal on the grounds of limitation, considering the marginal delay of 9 days, under Section 75(4) of the TNGST Act, 2017? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the delay of 9 days in filing the appeal was marginal and should have been condoned by the second respondent. They sought a direction to the first respondent to pass a fresh assessment order after affording a due opportunity of personal hearing, as mandated under Section 75(4) of the TNGST Act, 2017. Revenue's Arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondents. However, the rejection of the appeal by the second respondent implies that the revenue likely relied on the statutory limitation period for filing appeals.