The Madras High Court has held that the appeal should not be dismissed merely due to a procedural delay, especially when the petitioner has made an effort to comply with the statutory requirements, including the pre-deposit of 10% of the tax liability and additional payments towards the disputed tax amount.
The bench of Justice Vivek Kumar Singh has observed that the delay of 35 days in filing the appeal, while significant, could be condoned in the interests of justice, considering the circumstances surrounding the delay and the actions already taken by the petitioner to discharge a substantial portion of the disputed tax liability.
The petitioner challenged an order passed by the department, which sought the reversal of the input tax credit availed by the petitioner for the financial year 2019-2020.
The petitioner submitted that the notice was uploaded in the additional notices column of the common portal and the consultant engaged by the petitioner was unaware of the proceedings initiated by the first respondent. As a result, the petitioner was unable to submit a timely reply.
The petitioner became aware of the order only on 16.11.2024, when its bank account, maintained with the third respondent bank, was attached by the first respondent in recovery proceedings under Section 79 of the GST Act, 2017.
The petitioner filed an appeal along with a petition for condonation of the delay of 35 days under Section 107(4) of the GST Act, 2017. A pre-deposit under Section 107(6) was also made, amounting to 10% of the tax liability.
The department contended that the petitioner’s appeal was filed with a delay of 35 days and the department rightly rejected the appeal on the sole ground that it was beyond the condonable period of limitation by 5 days. The statutory time limit for filing the appeal is strict and allowing the appeal beyond the prescribed time would be contrary to the principles of natural justice and the statutory provisions.
The court quashed the order of the department and remanded the matter back for fresh consideration, directing the department to consider the appeal on its merits and in accordance with law.
Case Details
Case Title: Tvl. Chennais Pet Versus The State Tax Officer,
Case No.: W.P.(MD)No.3995 of 2025 and W.M.P.(MD)Nos.2880, 2881 and 2883 of 2025
Date: 14.02.2025
Counsel For Petitioner: Saitanya Kesan
Counsel For Respondent: J.K.Jayaselan
