Saroj Associates vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)

Held

The Court acknowledged that the petitioner had discharged the tax liability and interest. While noting the Supreme Court's decisions in Singh Enterprises and Hongo India (P) Limited regarding the finality of orders when appeals are withdrawn or time-barred, the Court found that the petitioner's initial appeal was withdrawn based on wrong advice, and their concern remained unaddressed. To balance the interests of the revenue and the petitioner, the Court decided to remit the case back to the first respondent. The first respondent is directed to reconsider the impugned order specifically concerning the imposition of penalty under Section 74 of the TNGST Act, 2017. This reconsideration is to be completed expeditiously, preferably within three months from the receipt of the order. The petitioner's statement not to press for a refund of the tax paid was recorded. No issue was expressly left undecided.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s.Saroj Associates, challenged an assessment order dated March 20, 2024, passed by the Assistant Commissioner (ST) for the assessment year 2017-18 under Section 74 of the TNGST Act, 2017, and a subsequent rejection order dated April 8, 2025, by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (ST). The petitioner had discharged the tax liability and interest after the initial assessment order. An appeal was filed on April 17, 2024, but was withdrawn based on incorrect advice, with the intention of availing an Amnesty Scheme. Subsequently, a fresh appeal was filed on March 21, 2025, against the same order, which was rejected as time-barred. The petitioner sought to quash both orders and requested a fresh order after a personal hearing.

Key Issues

1. Whether the second appeal filed by the petitioner against the assessment order dated 20.03.2024, which was rejected by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner on 08.04.2025, is maintainable in light of the petitioner having withdrawn their first appeal filed on 17.04.2024. The petitioner argued that the withdrawal of the first appeal was based on wrong advice and that their grievance remained unaddressed, necessitating a fresh consideration of the matter. They relied on the principle that justice should be done and that the withdrawal should not prejudice their case. The respondents, represented by the Additional Government Pleader, did not record specific arguments but implicitly supported the rejection order based on the principle of limitation and the Supreme Court's decisions in Singh Enterprises Vs CCE and CCE and Customs Vs. Hongo India (P) Limited, which uphold the finality of orders when appeals are not pressed or are time-barred.