2025 (6) TMI 1866 - HC - GST

Dismissal of appeal filed by the petitioner against the assessment order - time limitation - impugned order has been passed by the first respondent holding that the appeal filed by the petitioner was beyond the statutory period prescribed for condoning the delay in filing the appeal - period in dispute is from 01.04.2019 to 31.03.2020 - HELD THAT - Since the petitioner may have a case to establish this Court is inclined to come to the rescue of the petitioner by balancing the interest of the petitioner and the respondents by quashing the assessment order dated 14.08.2024 passed by the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer Thanjavur subject to the petitioner depositing 25% of the disputed tax after adjusting 10% of the disputed tax which is said to have been deposited by the petitioner before the first respondent at the time of filing of the appeal against the said order beyond the statutory period prescribed for condoning the delay in filing the appeal by the first respondent. Subject to the petitioner depositing another 15% of the disputed tax the petitioner shall be subjected to fresh proceedings by the Deputy State Tax Officer Thanjavur-I Assessment Circle Thanjavur who is now suo motu impleaded as second respondent to this writ petition. The order dated 14.08.2024 which stands quashed shall be treated as corrigendum to the notices that preceded in DRC 01 and DRC 01A. The petitioner shall file a detailed reply explaining the position - Petition disposed off.

Summary

The Madras High Court, through Justice C. Saravanan, dismissed the petitioner's challenge to the impugned appellate order dated 22.03.2025 under Section 107 of the TNGST Act, 2017, which upheld the dismissal of the petitioner's appeal against the assessment order dated 14.08.2024 for the period 01.04.2019 to 31.03.2020 on the ground that the appeal was filed beyond the statutory period for condoning delay.However, balancing the interests of both parties, the Court quashed the assessment order dated 14.08.2024 passed by the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Thanjavur, subject to the petitioner depositing 25% of the disputed tax after adjusting 10% already deposited during the delayed appeal filing. The petitioner must deposit an additional 15% of the disputed tax to enable fresh proceedings by the Deputy State Tax Officer, Thanjavur-I Assessment Circle, who was suo motu impleaded as the second respondent.The quashed order shall be treated as a corrigendum to the preceding notices (DRC 01 and DRC 01A), and the petitioner is directed to file a detailed reply. The second respondent shall pass fresh orders on merits and in accordance with law, ensuring the petitioner is heard before finalization. The writ petition was disposed of with no costs.