M/S.Sony Supermarket vs. The State Tax Officer

Held

The Court acknowledged that the limitation period for filing a statutory appeal under Section 107 of the respective GST enactments had expired. Considering this, and with the consent of both the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate for the respondent, the Writ Petition was disposed of at the admission stage. The petitioner was granted permission to file a statutory appeal before the Appellate Authority within fifteen (15) days from the date of receipt of the order. The Appellate Authority was directed to take up and dispose of the appeal on its merits, in turn, without reference to the expired limitation period. The Court did not decide on the merits of the petitioner's original challenge to the DRC 07 order, as the matter was resolved by permitting the statutory appeal.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Sony Supermarket, represented by its Partner S. Suryakumar, filed a writ petition before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court. The petitioner sought to quash an order in Form DRC 07, dated 27.01.2025, issued by the respondent, the State Tax Officer, Tirupathur. The petitioner contended that the order was without jurisdiction and in clear violation of statutory provisions. A significant procedural fact is that the limitation period for filing a statutory appeal before the Appellate Authority under Section 107 of the respective GST enactments had expired.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order in Form DRC 07, dated 27.01.2025, issued by the respondent is without jurisdiction and in violation of statutory provisions? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the order passed by the respondent was without jurisdiction and violated statutory provisions, necessitating the filing of a writ petition. Respondent's contention: The respondent did not explicitly record any arguments in the judgment. However, the court's decision to allow the filing of a belated appeal implies that the respondent did not oppose the petitioner's request for condonation of delay. The judgment notes that the limitation for filing an appeal had expired, and the court proceeded with the consent of both parties.