Tvl.Antony And Sons vs. The Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes

Facts

The petitioner, Tvl. Antony & Sons, is challenging an order-in-original dated 14.10.2023 passed by the second respondent, the State Tax Officer. The petitioner claims the order was passed without affording them an opportunity of being heard, as notice was only served on the GST web portal and was not noticed by the petitioner. Subsequently, the petitioner filed an appeal before the third respondent, the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (GST), on 12.03.2024. This appeal was rejected on 14.03.2024 on the grounds that it was filed beyond the condonable period of limitation under Section 107 of the TNGST Act, 2017. The respondents argued that the writ petition was devoid of merits as the issue had attained finality due to the dismissal of the appeal on limitation grounds.

Held

The Court held that while the petitioner was negligent in not participating in the proceedings before the second respondent and filing the appeal beyond the statutory period of limitation, discretion could be exercised in their favour. The Court reasoned that the petitioner might have a strong case against the impugned assessment order, which was passed without a proper hearing. Therefore, the Court directed the third respondent, the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (GST), to number and dispose of the petitioner's appeal on merits. The Court emphasized that the petitioner must be heard before any order is passed. The Court did not decide on the merits of the original assessment order itself, but rather on the procedural fairness of the assessment and the subsequent appeal.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order-in-original dated 14.10.2023 passed by the second respondent is liable to be quashed on the ground that it was passed without affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard, contrary to principles of natural justice? 2. Whether the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (GST) erred in rejecting the petitioner's appeal filed on 12.03.2024 solely on the ground of limitation, without considering the merits of the case, especially when the delay was allegedly due to non-receipt of notice? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the order-in-original was passed ex-parte without proper notice, violating principles of natural justice. They also argued that their appeal, though filed beyond the condonable period, should have been considered on merits by the Appellate Authority, given the circumstances of non-receipt of notice for the original assessment. Respondents' arguments: The respondents argued that the writ petition lacked merit because the petitioner's appeal had already been dismissed on the ground of limitation, thereby bringing finality to the matter.