2023 (4) TMI 701 - HC - GST

Condonation of delay (delay is one week shy of four months) in filing appeal - TNGST Act - HELD THAT - In such cases (where delay is more than 120 days), it calls upon the Court to examine whether there was any justification available for having approach this Court belatedly and only then consider intervening. In the present case, the petitioner has stated that the delay was due to the mistake of the accountant only. That apart, incidentally, though being a point on merits, this has not weighed with the Court in intervening in the matter, the very validity of Section 16(4) of the Act in terms of which the respondent has reversed input tax credit has been challenged and is pending consideration in WP.No.8154 of 2022 and other cases, though not at the instance of the petitioner. Seeing as the petitioner is a small trader, and an explanation of some nature has been set out in the affidavit, the petitioner may be permitted to approach the appellate authority before whom all conditions for entertaining the appeal such as pre-deposit would be applicable. If appeal is filed within a period of one week from today, it shall be entertained without reference to limitation but ensuring compliance with all other requirements including pre-deposit - this writ petition is dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
The issues involved in the judgment are the belated filing of an appeal under the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and the challenge to the validity of Section 16(4) of the Act.

Belated Filing of Appeal:
The petitioner approached the court belatedly, almost four months after the impugned order was passed under the Act. The delay exceeded the permissible period for filing an appeal, which is 120 days. The petitioner claimed that the delay was not willful, attributing it to the mistake of the accountant. The petitioner explained to the respondent that the delay in filing the return was due to the accountant's error, leading to the cancellation of the registration certificate. Despite these reasons, the court did not find justification to intervene in the matter.

Challenge to Section 16(4) of the Act:
The validity of Section 16(4) of the Act, which allowed the respondent to reverse input tax credit, was challenged in another case pending consideration. Although this challenge was not raised by the petitioner, it was noted by the court. However, this point on merits did not influence the court's decision to intervene in the present case.

Court's Decision:
Considering the petitioner's status as a small trader and the explanation provided in the affidavit, the court allowed the petitioner to approach the appellate authority. The petitioner was given one week to file an appeal without being restricted by the limitation period, provided all other requirements, including pre-deposit, were met. The writ petition was dismissed with liberty, meaning the petitioner had the freedom to seek remedy through the appellate authority. No costs were awarded, and connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.