M/S.Femina Shopping Mall Private Limited vs. The Assistant Commissioner

Held

The Court held that the petitioner should be permitted to file a statutory appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). The reasoning was based on the petitioner's submission that they missed the appeal deadline due to oversight and technical issues with the order's digital signature, and their request for an opportunity to pursue the appellate remedy. The Court directed that the petitioner could file a hard copy and a soft copy of the appeal within 30 days from the receipt of the order. This filing would be subject to the pre-deposit of the amount required under Section 107 of the respective GST enactment. The Appellate Authority was instructed to dispose of the appeal on its merits, without reference to the limitation period, provided the pre-deposit was made. Any amount already paid by the petitioner would be treated as part of the pre-deposit. The petitioner would be heard before the appeal is decided on merits. No issue was expressly left undecided.

Facts

M/s. Femina Shopping Mall Private Limited (the petitioner) filed a writ petition challenging an assessment order dated December 26, 2023, passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Division-I, GST-Trichy (the respondent). The impugned order confirmed demands totaling ₹1,02,38,592. The petitioner contended that they failed to notice the date of the order and, upon attempting to file an appeal on April 29, 2024, found it was not received in the system due to the absence of a digital signature in the order. The petitioner sought an opportunity to pursue the appellate remedy. The respondent did not file a counter. The matter was heard at the admission stage.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner should be granted an opportunity to file a statutory appeal before the Appellate Authority, despite the apparent delay, considering the circumstances presented. Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that they missed the deadline for filing the appeal due to not noticing the order's date and the technical issue with the digital signature. They specifically requested an opportunity to pursue their appellate remedy. The petitioner relied on the principle of natural justice and the need for a fair chance to be heard. Respondent's contention: The respondent, represented by the Senior Standing Counsel, did not file a counter. The judgment notes that the matter was disposed of after hearing both sides, implying the respondent's counsel was heard, but their specific arguments are not recorded.