M/S. Rmr Engineering Contractors P LTD vs. The State Tax Officer

Held

The Court acknowledged the petitioner's failure to respond to the initial notices, leading to the assessment order. It also noted the delay in filing the appeal before the Appellate Authority. However, considering that the petitioner had already deposited 10% of the disputed tax, the Court directed the petitioner to deposit an additional 15% of the disputed tax within 30 days. The impugned order dated 26.07.2023 was quashed and treated as an addendum to the show cause notice. The Court directed the respondent to pass a fresh order on merits after hearing the petitioner, preferably within three months. The Court made it clear that failure to comply with these conditions would result in the writ petition being deemed dismissed. The ratio decidendi is that in cases involving procedural lapses and delays, a balance can be struck by directing further deposits and ensuring a hearing on merits, thereby upholding principles of natural justice while also securing revenue.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. RMR Engineering Contractors P Ltd, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 26.07.2023 passed by the State Tax Officer (First Respondent) for the assessment year 2019-2020, under Section 73 of the TNGST Act, 2017. This order was preceded by several notices to which the petitioner failed to respond. Subsequently, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner (GST Appeal) (Second Respondent) against the order of the First Respondent. However, this appeal was filed with a delay of 68 days beyond the condonable period and was rejected by the Second Respondent on 19.03.2025 on the grounds of delay. The petitioner sought to quash both orders and requested a fresh order after affording an opportunity of personal hearing.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Appellate Authority was justified in rejecting the appeal solely on the ground of delay, without considering the merits of the case, especially when the petitioner sought an opportunity to explain their case afresh? (Question of law and fact, turning on Section 75(4) of the TNGST Act, 2017 and principles of natural justice). Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that they should be given an opportunity to explain their case afresh and that the appellate order was cryptic, non-speaking, illegal, arbitrary, and without jurisdiction. They relied on the principle of affording a personal hearing as contemplated under Section 75(4) of the TNGST Act, 2017. Respondents' Contention: The judgment does not explicitly record any specific arguments made by the respondents. However, their implicit contention was that the appeal was rightly rejected due to the significant delay and the petitioner's failure to respond to earlier notices.