Thangadurai Nadar Steels And Hardware And Paints vs. The Joint Commissioner (St)

Held

The Court held that the impugned order dated 29.02.2024 passed by the second respondent, rejecting the petitioner's appeal on the grounds of limitation, was set aside. The Court reasoned that the delay was marginal and, considering the petitioner's contention of having a case on merits, it was appropriate to provide an opportunity for a hearing. The matter was remitted back to the Appellate Commissioner to dispose of the appeal on its merits. The Court directed the petitioner to deposit an additional 20% of the disputed tax, over and above the 10% already contemplated under Section 107 of the respective GST enactments. The Appellate Commissioner was directed to dispose of the appeal within three months from the date of the order, hearing the petitioner without reference to the limitation period. The Court also directed the third respondent to issue directions to de-freeze the petitioner's bank account after deducting the 20% pre-deposit.

Facts

The petitioner, Thangadurai Nadar Steels & Hardware and Paints, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 29.02.2024 passed by the second respondent (Deputy Commissioner (ST), GST Appeal). This order rejected the petitioner's appeal against an earlier order dated 06.10.2023. The reason for rejection was that the appeal was filed 14 days after the expiry of the limitation period. The petitioner contended that they had a strong case on merits and the delay was marginal, seeking an opportunity to be heard. The respondents argued that the writ petition was not maintainable and appeals filed beyond the statutory period are not entertainable, citing Supreme Court decisions.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Appellate Commissioner was justified in rejecting the petitioner's appeal solely on the ground of being filed beyond the statutory limitation period, despite a marginal delay and a claim of merit, thereby violating principles of natural justice? (Mixed question of law and fact, turning on principles of natural justice and the interpretation of limitation provisions under GST law). Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that they had a clear case on merits and, given the marginal delay, an opportunity should be granted to argue the appeal. They contended that the impugned order was invalid and violated the principles of natural justice by not considering the merits. Respondents' arguments: The respondents argued that the writ petition was not maintainable and that appeals filed beyond the statutory period of limitation are not maintainable, citing the Supreme Court decisions in Singh Enterprises Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jamshedpur and others and Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Kakinada and others vs. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limited.