Tvl. Sastha Rice Mill vs. The State Tax Officer

Held

The Court held that the petitioner should be permitted to file a statutory appeal within 15 days from the date of receipt of the order, subject to complying with the pre-deposit requirements under Section 107 of the Act. The Court reasoned that while the petitioner had slept over their rights and approached the court after the limitation period and after bank account attachment, granting an opportunity to file a statutory appeal would be appropriate. The appellate Commissioner was directed to entertain the appeal and dispose of it on merits without reference to the limitation period, provided the appeal is filed within the stipulated time along with the required pre-deposit on the disputed tax of Rs. 10,38,162/-. The petitioner was also granted liberty to canvass that they had already paid Rs. 1,90,276/- as early as on 18.08.2021 in the said proceedings. No specific issue was left undecided.

Facts

The petitioner, Tvl. Sastha Rice Mill, represented by its partner, M. Senthil Kumar, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 27.02.2025, passed by the State Tax Officer under Section 73 of the GST enactment. This order confirmed a total demand of Rs. 10,38,162/- towards tax, with the total amount due, including interest, penalty, and late fee, amounting to approximately Rs. 19,21,825/-. The petitioner claims to have paid Rs. 1,92,276/- on 18.08.2021, prior to the issuance of the notice. The petitioner was unaware of the order posted on the web portal. Subsequently, the respondent issued an attachment notice on 03.06.2025, leading to the attachment of the petitioner's bank account on 27.06.2025. The petitioner approached the High Court after the statutory period for filing an appeal had expired.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner should be granted an opportunity to file a statutory appeal before the appellate authority, despite the delay and the expiry of the limitation period, considering the petitioner's claim of being unaware of the order? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that they were unaware of the order passed and uploaded on the web portal. They sought quashing of the impugned order and a direction to the respondent to pass a fresh order after affording an opportunity to file objections with supporting documents. Respondent's contention: The respondent, represented by the Additional Government Pleader, took notice. The judgment does not explicitly record any detailed arguments from the respondent's side beyond acknowledging the notice. However, the court's direction implies that the respondent's actions (issuing attachment notices) were based on the order passed.