Ntc Infrastructure And Engineering PVT LTD vs. Assistant Commissioner (St) (Inspection)

Held

The Court held that there were no reasons to deviate from the stand taken in similar matters concerning the same petitioner. Consequently, the Writ Petition was disposed of by granting liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal before the Appellate Authority against the impugned assessment order dated 10.12.2024. This liberty is subject to the petitioner making the pre-deposit as required under Section 107 of the respective GST Enactments within 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. The Court further directed that if the petitioner had already paid the entire tax amount or any part thereof, it would be taken into account by the Appellate Authority towards the pre-deposit requirement. The Appellate Authority is to consider the appeal on merits and dispose of it expeditiously if filed within the stipulated time. The Court did not decide on the merits of the assessment order itself.

Facts

The petitioner, NTC Infrastructure and Engineering Pvt. Ltd., filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 10.12.2024 passed by the Assistant Commissioner (ST) (Inspection) under Section 73 of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017/Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner also challenged rectification orders dated 10.12.2024 and 11.04.2025. The impugned order pertains to the financial year 2022-23. The petitioner's request for rectification of the initial order was rejected on 11.04.2025. The petitioner had previously filed similar writ petitions (W.P.(MD) Nos.16184 and 16185 of 2025) which were disposed of on 16.06.2025, granting liberty to challenge the assessment order by invoking Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner should be granted liberty to file an appeal before the Appellate Authority against the impugned assessment order dated 10.12.2024, despite the delay, by invoking the principles of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963? The petitioner argued that they should be allowed to file an appeal, relying on the previous order passed in similar writ petitions filed by them, which granted such liberty. The petitioner contended that the principles of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, should be applied to condone any delay in filing the appeal. The respondent, represented by the Government Advocate, did not record any specific arguments against this plea, but the Court's decision implies a consideration of the procedural aspects and the availability of alternative remedies.