Thulasi Fabric vs. The State Tax Officer

Held

The Court held that the dismissal of the appeal by the second respondent solely on the ground of delay, without a proper explanation being considered, was liable to be interfered with. The Court noted that the petitioner had paid the disputed tax, and the primary contention revolved around the liability for interest under the Act. The Court reasoned that the question of whether the petitioner was liable for interest could and should be decided in the appeal. Consequently, the impugned order passed by the second respondent was set aside, and the appeal before the second respondent was restored. The Court directed the second respondent to dispose of the appeal on its merits and in accordance with the law, after affording an opportunity of personal hearing. The Court explicitly stated that the appeal was disposed of with these observations.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Thulasi Fabric, represented by its Proprietrix R. Meena, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 10.11.2023 passed by the first respondent (State Tax Officer) for the assessment period 2017-18, and a consequential order dated 20.03.2025 passed by the second respondent (Appellate Deputy Commissioner). The petitioner also did not participate in the proceedings before the first respondent. The appeal filed before the second respondent was dismissed solely on the ground that the petitioner had not properly explained the delay in filing the appeal. The petitioner contended that the impugned orders were cryptic, non-speaking, illegal, arbitrary, and without jurisdiction. The petitioner sought a fresh order after a personal hearing.

Key Issues

1. Whether the dismissal of the petitioner's appeal by the second respondent on the ground of an unexplained delay, without considering the merits, is legally sustainable, particularly when the petitioner claims to have paid the disputed tax and the issue pertains to liability for interest under the TNGST Act, 2017? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the dismissal of the appeal was unsustainable as it was based on a procedural technicality (delay) without addressing the substantive issues. They contended that the orders were cryptic and non-speaking, violating principles of natural justice. The petitioner also highlighted that the disputed tax had been paid, and the core issue was the liability for interest, which warranted a decision on merits. They relied on the principle that personal hearing should be afforded as contemplated under Section 75(4) of the TNGST Act, 2017. Respondents' arguments: The respondents, represented by the Government Advocate, did not record any specific arguments in the judgment regarding the dismissal of the appeal on delay, other than implicitly supporting the order passed by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner.