9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (2) TMI 654 - HC - GSTTime limitation for making pre-deposit - Validity of assessment order - validity of notice by which the appellate authority declined to receive the statutory appeal - HELD THAT - The documents on record include the receipt evidencing payment of a sum of Rs. 2,53,540/- by the petitioner. The tax liability, as per the impugned assessment order, is a sum of Rs. 10,14,136/-. Thus, the amount paid is about 25% of the disputed tax. This pre deposit satisfies the requirements of Section 51 of the TNVAT Act. The appellate authority refused to receive the payment because the limitation period prescribed in the TNVAT Act is 60 days unlike the TNGST, which prescribes the limitation period of 90 days. Given the fact that there is some basis to contend that there was confusion as to whether the proceedings are under the TNVAT Act or the TNGST Act and taking into account the fact that the requisite pre-deposit was made, this is an appropriate case to direct the appellate authority to receive and dispose of the appeal on merits without going into the aspect of limitation. The appellate authority is directed to receive and dispose of the statutory appeal on merits after providing a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner - Petition closed.
Issues involved:
The issues involved in the judgment are the validity of an assessment order issued without a personal hearing, confusion regarding the applicable tax laws (TNVAT Act or TNGST Act), rejection of a statutory appeal on the grounds of delay, and the requirement of pre-deposit under the TNVAT Act. Assessment Order without Personal Hearing: The petitioner challenged an assessment order issued without a personal hearing and without considering the submissions made in response. The counsel for the petitioner argued that there was confusion regarding whether the proceedings were under the TNVAT Act or the TNGST Act, as the starting point was the GSTR-3B return. The counsel pointed out the lack of personal hearing and consideration of submissions. The court acknowledged the confusion and directed the appellate authority to receive and dispose of the appeal on merits without considering the aspect of limitation. Confusion Regarding Applicable Tax Laws: The respondent highlighted that the tax proceedings were related to the pre-GST period, from 01.04.2017 to 30.06.2017, indicating that they fall under the TNVAT Act. The petitioner had made a pre-deposit of 25% of the disputed tax amount, satisfying the requirements of Section 51 of the TNVAT Act. The appellate authority rejected the appeal based on a 60-day limitation period under the TNVAT Act, while the TNGST Act has a 90-day limitation period. Considering the confusion between the two Acts, the court directed the appellate authority to accept and adjudicate the appeal on its merits. Rejection of Statutory Appeal on Grounds of Delay: The petitioner's statutory appeal was rejected by the appellate authority due to being filed 84 days after receiving the assessment order, exceeding the 60-day limitation period under the TNVAT Act. The court, considering the confusion between the TNVAT Act and the TNGST Act, directed the appellate authority to accept and decide the appeal on its merits without focusing on the issue of delay. Requirement of Pre-Deposit under TNVAT Act: The petitioner had made a pre-deposit of Rs. 2,53,540/-, which was about 25% of the disputed tax amount of Rs. 10,14,136/-. This pre-deposit satisfied the requirements of Section 51 of the TNVAT Act. The court, acknowledging the confusion between the two tax laws and the compliance with the pre-deposit requirement, directed the appellate authority to receive and adjudicate the appeal on its merits, without emphasizing the limitation aspect. Conclusion: The judgment quashed the order impugned in one case and directed the appellate authority to receive and decide the statutory appeal on its merits after providing a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner. As a result, the related cases were closed.
|
