Brithivirajan. S vs. Joint Commissioner (St)

Facts

The petitioner, S. Brithivirajan, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 01.02.2023 passed by the second respondent (Deputy Commissioner (ST), GST Appeal). The petitioner had an adverse assessment order for the assessment year 2018-2019 from the fourth respondent (State Tax Officer) on 04.08.2022, leading to a demand notice and recovery of Rs. 11,53,720/-. The petitioner filed an appeal before the second respondent on 27.12.2022, which was beyond the prescribed limitation period of 90 days plus a condonable period of 30 days under Section 107(4) of the TNGST Act. The appeal was filed 24 days beyond the condonable period. The petitioner had deposited Rs. 1,15,372/- as pre-deposit with the appeal.

Held

The Court held that the substantive right of the petitioner to redress their grievance by way of appeal cannot be curtailed, particularly considering that the tax liability had already been recovered from the petitioner on 01.12.2022. Furthermore, the petitioner had paid the pre-deposit of Rs. 1,15,372/- on 27.12.2022 along with the appeal, which was filed beyond the condonable period under Section 107(4) of the TNGST Act. The Court found it to be a fit case to direct the second respondent to consider and dispose of the appeal on its merits, without reference to the period of limitation. The ratio decidendi is that substantial justice and the right to be heard in appeal can outweigh strict adherence to limitation periods when tax has been recovered and pre-deposit made, especially in writ jurisdiction.

Key Issues

1. Whether the appeal filed by the petitioner before the second respondent, beyond the period of limitation prescribed under Section 107(4) of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, including the condonable period, is maintainable? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that their substantive right to seek redressal through appeal should not be curtailed, especially since the tax liability had already been recovered and a pre-deposit was made along with the appeal. The petitioner relied on the fact that the recovery was made on 01.12.2022 and the appeal with pre-deposit was filed on 27.12.2022. Respondents' contention: The respondents did not appear to have made any specific arguments against the maintainability of the appeal on grounds of limitation, as the judgment notes the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents without detailing the latter's specific arguments on this point.