M/S.St Joseph Blue Metal vs. The Deputy Commissioner (GST)

Held

The Court decided to grant the petitioner a fair chance to present their grievances against the impugned order. While acknowledging the respondents' argument regarding limitation, the Court did not definitively rule on whether the appeal was filed within the condonable period. Instead, it directed the petitioner to deposit 25% of the disputed tax as a pre-deposit, exceeding the 10% stipulated under Section 107 of the TNGST Act, 2017. Upon compliance and reporting, the appeal would be numbered and listed for final hearing on merits by the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority was directed to dispose of the appeal expeditiously, preferably within nine months. The Court made it clear that failure to deposit the 25% pre-deposit within 30 days would result in the appeal not being placed before the Appellate Authority. The issue of whether the appeal was initially filed within the condonable period was implicitly left undecided in favor of allowing the appeal to be heard on merits subject to the pre-deposit condition.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s.St.Joseph Blue Metal, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 18.04.2024 passed by the first respondent, the Deputy Commissioner (GST), who is the Appellate Authority. The petitioner had previously faced an adverse order from the second respondent, the State Tax Officer, on 10.04.2023, pertaining to the assessment year 2018-19. The petitioner claims to have received this order only on 23.10.2023 and filed an appeal before the Appellate Commissioner on 31.03.2024, asserting it was within the condonable period of limitation under Section 107 of the TNGST Act, 2017. The respondents contended that the appeal was filed beyond the period of limitation.

Key Issues

1. Whether the appeal filed by the petitioner before the Appellate Authority was within the condonable period of limitation under Section 107 of the TNGST Act, 2017, considering the date of receipt of the original order and the date of filing the appeal? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the appeal was filed within the condonable period of limitation under Section 107 of the TNGST Act, 2017, as they received the original order on 23.10.2023 and filed the appeal on 31.03.2024. They relied on the principle that appeals filed within the extended period, including condonable delay, should be considered. Respondents' contention: The respondents argued that the appeal was filed beyond the period of limitation and that the writ petition was liable to be dismissed, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Singh Enterprises Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jamshedpur and others (2008) 3 SCC 70, which emphasizes adherence to limitation periods.