Tvl.Solai Venkateshwara Stores vs. The State Tax Officer

Held

The Court decided to grant the petitioner an opportunity to file a statutory appeal before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (GST), Trichy, partly in favour of the petitioner. The reasoning was based on the submissions made by the petitioner regarding the inability to file the appeal within the stipulated time due to personal circumstances and the fact that a substantial amount had already been paid or recovered. The Court directed the petitioner to file the appeal within 30 days of receiving the order, along with a pre-deposit of an additional 25% of the disputed tax, over and above the amounts already recovered. The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (GST) was suo motu impleaded as the second respondent and directed to entertain the appeals and dispose of them on merits expeditiously, preferably within three months of filing. The Court also stipulated that if the petitioner failed to comply with the pre-deposit and filing requirements, the relief granted would stand automatically revoked. No issue was expressly left undecided.

Facts

The petitioner, Tvl. Solai Venkateshwara Stores, filed two writ petitions challenging orders dated May 30, 2023, and May 26, 2023, issued by the State Tax Officer, Thanjavur. These orders confirmed demands for tax, interest, and penalty for the assessment years 2021-22 and 2022-23, totaling Rs. 14,12,932.00 and Rs. 6,14,914.00 respectively. The petitioner contended that stocks were transferred due to the demolition of a sister concern's godown and were found at the petitioner's premises during an inspection on May 13, 2022. The petitioner's inability to file a statutory appeal within the prescribed time was attributed to the petitioner's husband's hospitalization. The Department had attached the petitioner's bank account for a sum of Rs. 20,27,846/-. The petitioner had already paid Rs. 1,00,000/- in cash and Rs. 40,096/- was recovered from their Electronic Credit Ledger.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner should be granted an opportunity to file a statutory appeal before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (GST) despite the delay, considering the circumstances presented. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the demands confirmed by the impugned orders were unjustified. They further submitted that due to the hospitalization of the petitioner's husband, they were unable to file the statutory appeal within the time stipulated under Section 107 of the respective GST enactments. The petitioner requested one opportunity to file the appeal, highlighting that the interest and penalty imposed were disproportionate. The petitioner also pointed out that a significant portion of the demand had already been paid or recovered. Revenue's arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the Revenue or State Tax Officer in opposition to the petitioner's request for an opportunity to file an appeal.