Murugan vs. The Deputy Commissioner (GST Appeals) (St)

Held

The Court allowed the writ petition by granting the petitioner liberty to file an appeal within 15 days from the date of the order. This liberty is granted subject to the condition that the petitioner deposits 25% of the disputed tax as pre-deposit, mirroring the condition imposed in a previous order for the assessment year 2019-20. The Court directed that if the petitioner approaches the first respondent (Deputy Commissioner (GST Appeals)) with the appeal and the deposit, the appeal shall be entertained and disposed of on its merits and in accordance with law, without any reference to the limitation period. The respondents were also directed to ensure that online facilities are made available for filing the appeal, while the petitioner was advised to file a manual copy within the stipulated period and upload it online when the facility becomes available. The Court found satisfaction with the reasons stated in the petitioner's affidavit and the enclosed medical records, leading to the exercise of discretion in favour of the petitioner. No costs were imposed.

Facts

The petitioner, Murugan, filed a writ petition before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court challenging an order dated 08.06.2023 passed by the second respondent, the State Tax Officer. The petitioner sought to quash this order and requested a fresh assessment with an opportunity for a personal hearing. The dispute pertains to the assessment year 2022-23. The Court noted a previous order dated 07.06.2024 in a related writ petition (W.P.(MD).No.11955 of 2024) concerning the assessment year 2019-20, where the petitioner was granted liberty to approach the Appellate Commissioner upon depositing 25% of the disputed tax. The present petition is being considered in light of the reasons stated in the affidavit and enclosed medical records.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner should be granted an opportunity to file an appeal against the order dated 08.06.2023 passed by the State Tax Officer for the assessment year 2022-23, despite potential limitation issues? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner, citing medical reasons and the precedent set in a previous order for a different assessment year, argued for the necessity of a fresh assessment with a personal hearing and sought liberty to file an appeal within a stipulated period, subject to pre-deposit conditions. Revenue's contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondents (State Tax Officer and Deputy Commissioner (GST Appeals)).