M/S. Shami Industries vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer-Ii

Held

The Court held that while the petitioner had failed to file an appeal before the Appellate Authority within the stipulated time, there was only a marginal delay. Considering this, the Court was inclined to grant relief to the petitioner. The Court directed the petitioner to deposit 25% of the disputed tax in cash or through the electronic cash ledger within 15 days from the date of the order. Upon making this deposit, the petitioner was permitted to file the appeal before the Appellate Authority within the same period. The Appellate Authority was then directed to consider and dispose of the appeal on its merits, preferably expeditiously, after hearing the petitioner. The Court explicitly made it clear that the petitioner shall be heard before the Appellate Authority passes any order. The writ petition was disposed of with these directions.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Shami Industries, represented by its proprietrix, filed a writ petition challenging an assessment order dated 26.02.2025, issued by the Deputy State Tax Officer-II, Jaihindpuram Assessment Circle, Madurai. This order was passed pursuant to a Show Cause Notice dated 25.11.2024, for the tax period 2020-2021. The petitioner had responded to the Show Cause Notice and attended a personal hearing. Subsequently, the petitioner failed to file an appeal before the Appellate Authority within the prescribed 120 days, including a condonable period of 30 days, which expired on 26.06.2025. The writ petition was filed challenging the assessment order, citing a marginal delay in filing the appeal.

Key Issues

1. Whether the High Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution, should entertain a writ petition challenging an assessment order when the statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the respective GST enactments has not been availed within the prescribed time, and there has been a delay in filing the appeal. Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the assessment order was passed without jurisdiction and in clear violation of statutory provisions. While not explicitly stated, the petitioner's act of filing a writ petition implies a contention that the assessment order is fundamentally flawed, warranting High Court intervention despite the delay in appeal. Respondent's contention: The respondent, represented by the Additional Government Pleader, did not explicitly record any arguments in the judgment. However, the respondent's position would implicitly be that the petitioner has not exhausted the statutory remedies and the delay in filing the appeal is a bar to seeking relief from the High Court.