M/S. M.Kamal Batcharaja Stores vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. M.Kamal Batcharaja Stores, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 05.12.2025 passed by the Assistant Commissioner (ST) and a consequential order dated 06.05.2026 passed by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT). The Appellate Deputy Commissioner rejected the petitioner's appeal against the assessment order on the grounds of limitation. The petitioner had responded to a show cause notice dated 16.07.2025 preceding the assessment order. The petitioner had deposited 10% of the disputed tax at the time of filing the appeal. The petitioner claimed that the remaining 90% of the demand had been recovered post facto, a fact the revenue was unable to confirm.

Held

The Court quashed the impugned order dated 06.05.2026 passed by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner. The Court remitted the case back to the second respondent (Appellate Deputy Commissioner) to pass a fresh order on merits. This was subject to the petitioner depositing an additional 15% of the disputed tax, over and above the 10% already deposited, within thirty days of receiving the order. If the petitioner complied, the second respondent was to pass a final order on merits within three months. The Court also noted that if the balance 90% of the disputed tax had already been recovered, no further pre-deposit would be required, and the second respondent should proceed to pass an order on merits within three months. If the petitioner failed to comply with the stipulations, the respondents were at liberty to proceed with recovery. The Court directed that due notice be given to the petitioner before passing any order.

Key Issues

1. Whether the appeal filed by the petitioner before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner was barred by limitation, considering the facts and circumstances of the case? 2. Whether the order passed by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner rejecting the appeal on the ground of limitation is sustainable in law? The petitioner argued that the appeal was rejected on the ground of limitation, and that the assessment order dated 05.12.2025 was followed by a consequential order dated 06.05.2026. The petitioner also contended that 10% of the disputed tax was already deposited, and the balance 90% had been recovered. The respondents, represented by the Special Government Pleader, were unable to confirm the recovery of the balance 90% of the disputed tax.