Tvl.Viridis Engineering INDIA Private LTD vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer (Int)

Held

The Court acknowledged that the petitioner's mistake in not filing two separate appeals, instead filing a single composite appeal, appeared to be genuine. The Court noted that the grounds stated in the appeal filed were a composite challenge to both orders of the first respondent. Considering this, the Court was inclined to dispose of the writ petition by permitting the petitioner to file a formal appeal against the second order (Order No. 1451/2024-25/Madurai RS-III) within fifteen days of receiving a copy of the order. The Court directed the Appellate Authority (suo motu impleaded as the second respondent) to consider and dispose of this proposed appeal on its merits, in accordance with a previous order dated July 15, 2025, in Appeal No. AP/GST/846/2025. The writ petition was disposed of with these observations.

Facts

The petitioner, Tvl.Viridis Engineering India Private Limited, ordered goods from a supplier in Surat on February 2, 2025. E-way bills were raised for consignments to be shipped to the petitioner's customer in Sivagangai, transported in two lorries. The first respondent, The Deputy State Tax Officer (Int), Madurai, issued two separate penalty orders under Section 129 of the GST enactments, 2017, dated February 8, 2025, for the two consignments. The petitioner paid the penalty and filed a composite appeal against both orders. However, the appeal only referenced one order (ZD3302250859546), omitting the other (ZD330225085540N). Consequently, the Appellate Commissioner rejected the petitioner's prayer regarding the second order. The petitioner then filed a writ petition challenging this rejection and seeking a refund of the penalty collected.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Appellate Commissioner erred in rejecting the petitioner's appeal concerning Order No. ZD330225085540N due to a procedural oversight in filing a single appeal instead of two, when the grounds for challenging both orders were composite? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the mistake in filing a single appeal was genuine, as the grounds for challenging both penalty orders were identical and composite. They contended that the Appellate Commissioner should have considered the merits of the case rather than dismissing the appeal on a technicality. The petitioner sought to quash the order of the first respondent and refund the penalty collected. Revenue's contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the revenue or state.