Madras HC Allows to file GST Appeal Despite Missed Deadline and Rejected Rectification, Subject to Additional 10% Pre-deposit [Read Order]
The court, taking a balanced view, observed that though there was no legal bar preventing the petitioner from filing an appeal earlier, in the interest of justice, an opportunity should be provided to substantiate their case.
GST - appeal - Taxscan
GST - appeal - Taxscan
The Madras High Court, recently has permitted assessee to file a belated GST ( Goods and Services Tax ) appeal, despite the statutory time limit for filing having expired and a rectification application being rejected earlier on additional 10% pre-deposit over and above the statutory deposit requirement.
An assessment order dated March 25, 2024, passed by the State Tax Officer under the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax (TNGST) Act for the assessment year 2016-2017. The GST order demanded tax along with interest and penalties.
The petitioner, Tvl.Patil Constructions and Infrastructure Limited, had submitted a reply to the show cause notice issued on June 15, 2023, but alleged that the respondent had failed to properly consider their response before passing the assessment order.
Step by Step Guidance for Tax Audit & E-filing, Click Here
Following the assessment order, the petitioner approached the tax authority with a rectification petition under Section 161 of the TNGST Act on the belief that the issue could be resolved without litigation. However, the rectification request was rejected on June 10, 2024. By then, the deadline to file a statutory appeal had already lapsed.
In the petition, the counsel for the petitioner submitted that the delay in appeal was not deliberate but stemmed from a bonafide belief that the issue could be rectified administratively. The petitioner, therefore, sought the Court’s permission to file an appeal before the appellate authority.
The Government Advocate representing the respondent submitted that while the petitioner should have filed an appeal immediately, the assessment order had indeed been passed after taking the petitioner’s reply into account. However, she did not oppose the petitioner’s request, provided it was subject to reasonable terms.
Get a Complete Kit of Essential Books for Daily Practice, Click Here
JusticeKrishnan Ramasamy, taking a balanced view, observed that though there was no legal bar preventing the petitioner from filing an appeal earlier, in the interest of justice, an opportunity should be provided to substantiate their case.
Accordingly, the Court permitted the petitioner to file an appeal before the appellate authority, subject to depositing an additional 10% of the disputed tax amount over and above the statutory 10% already required.
The Court directed that after such payment, the appeal shall be taken on record and decided on merits and in accordance with law, after granting sufficient opportunity to the petitioner. The writ petition was disposed of with these directions, and no costs were imposed.
Ms.R.Hemalatha and Ms. Amirtapoonkodi Dinakaran Government Advocate (Tax) appeared for the petitioner and department respectively.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscanpremium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
