L Charli vs. The Appellate Deputy Commissioner Of GST Appeal

Facts

The petitioner, L. Charli, Proprietor of J.B. Enterprises, filed a writ petition seeking a Mandamus to direct the first respondent, the Appellate Deputy Commissioner of GST Appeal, to consider their appeal against an order dated 11.07.2023 passed by the second respondent, the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer. The petitioner had initially impleaded the wrong authority as the first respondent, which was subsequently amended by the Court. The admitted facts indicate that the petitioner suffered an adverse assessment order and filed an appeal on 31.01.2024, which was beyond the condonable period of limitation prescribed under Section 107 of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Act, 2017. The petitioner had pre-deposited 10% of the disputed tax.

Held

The Court held that a direction can be issued to the first respondent, the Appellate Deputy Commissioner of GST Appeal, to consider and pass orders on merits in the appeal filed by the petitioner. The reasoning was based on the admitted facts that the petitioner had suffered an adverse assessment order, filed an appeal beyond the condonable period of limitation under Section 107 of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Act, 2017, and had pre-deposited 10% of the disputed tax. The Court directed the Appellate Authority to consider the appeal in accordance with law, without reference to the limitation period under Section 107 of the Act. The operative direction was to dispose of the writ petition with these directions. No issue was expressly left undecided.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Appellate Deputy Commissioner of GST Appeal should be directed to consider the petitioner's appeal on merits, notwithstanding the delay in filing it beyond the period prescribed under Section 107 of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Act, 2017? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner sought a direction for the appellate authority to consider their appeal on merits. The judgment does not explicitly record any specific arguments made by the petitioner regarding the delay or the merits of the appeal, other than seeking consideration. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not explicitly record any arguments made by the respondents (Revenue). However, the admitted facts highlight that the appeal was filed beyond the condonable period of limitation under Section 107 of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Act, 2017.