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

Held

The Court, considering the facts and submissions, was inclined to dispose of the writ petition by directing the petitioner to approach the first respondent (Deputy Commissioner (GST Appeals)) with an appeal within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order. This appeal must be accompanied by a pre-deposit of 25% of the disputed tax. The Court held that if the petitioner complies with these conditions, the appeal shall be entertained and disposed of on merits and in accordance with law, without reference to the limitation period. The respondents were directed to ensure that online facilities are made available for filing the appeal. In the interim, the petitioner was permitted to file a manual copy of the appeal within 30 days and upload it to the portal once available. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided, but the primary focus was on providing a procedural remedy for the petitioner to pursue their case on merits.

Facts

The petitioner 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 (State Tax Officer). The petitioner contended that the order was passed in violation of principles of natural justice and statutory provisions, and sought to quash it and direct the second respondent to re-do the assessment after providing an opportunity for a personal hearing. The petitioner's primary grievance was the inability to file a statutory appeal within the stipulated period under Section 107 of the TNGST Act, 2017, due to which they approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner stated that if given an opportunity to file an appeal, they would present their case before the Appellate Commissioner.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to an opportunity to file a statutory appeal beyond the prescribed limitation period under Section 107 of the TNGST Act, 2017, given the alleged violation of principles of natural justice and statutory provisions in the order dated 08.06.2023. Petitioner's contentions: The petitioner argued that the impugned order was passed in gross violation of the principles of natural justice and statutory provisions. They sought a direction to re-do the assessment after providing an opportunity for a personal hearing. The petitioner also stated that if permitted to file an appeal, they would effectively argue their case before the Appellate Commissioner under Section 107 of the TNGST Act, 2017. Respondents' contentions: The learned Government Advocate for the respondents argued that neither the writ petition nor the appeal is maintainable. Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court decision in Singh Enterprises Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jamshedpur and others (2008) 3 SCC 70, to submit that the writ petition is liable to be disposed of without granting any liberty to the petitioner.