9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (6) TMI 1477 - HC - GSTChallenge to order of assessment - HELD THAT - Admittedly no statutory appeal has been filed as against the assessment order and the short relief sought is that the petitioner may be permitted to challenge the impugned order by way of statutory appeal - The reason for approaching this Court by way of Writ Petition is that as on date of institution of the Writ Petition being 26.06.2023 the appeal was time barred by a little over one month from the last date provided under the Statute for condonation of delay. Having regard to the explanation set out and the fact that no serious objection is placed in this regard by the learned Government Advocate while sustaining the impugned order of assessment liberty is granted to the petitioner to challenge the same by way of statutory appeal before the first appellate authority. Petition dismissed.
ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED
The core legal questions considered in this judgment include:
ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS 1. Permission to File a Statutory Appeal The petitioner sought permission to challenge the assessment order through a statutory appeal, which was time-barred by a little over one month beyond the statutory period for condonation of delay. The relevant legal framework involves the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, which governs the filing and timelines of appeals against tax assessments. The Court considered the explanation provided by the petitioner regarding the delay. The petitioner attributed the delay to the inaction of their Chartered Accountant, who failed to file a rectification petition or an appeal for the assessment year 2019-2020. The Court noted that the Government Advocate did not seriously object to the suggestion that the delay be condoned, given the circumstances outlined in the affidavit. The Court's reasoning emphasized the need to allow the petitioner to pursue a statutory appeal to ensure the matter is considered on its merits by the appellate authority. 2. Condonation of Delay The Court examined the petitioner's explanation for the delay, which included the attachment of the bank account, affecting the ability to make necessary pre-deposits for filing appeals. The Court found the explanation satisfactory and noted the lack of serious objection from the Government Advocate. Key evidence and findings include the affidavit submitted by the petitioner, detailing the sequence of events leading to the delay. The Court applied the legal principle that procedural delays, especially when reasonably explained, should not obstruct access to justice. The Court concluded that the delay should be condoned, allowing the petitioner to file the appeal without reference to the limitation period, provided all other statutory conditions are met. 3. Lifting of Bank Account Attachment The petitioner requested the lifting of the bank account attachment to facilitate the payment of a 10% pre-deposit for appeals concerning previous years. The Court did not directly address this request in its final order, focusing instead on granting liberty to file the appeal for the assessment year 2019-2020. The treatment of competing arguments was minimal, as the Government Advocate did not oppose the Court's inclination to condone the delay and allow the statutory appeal. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS The Court held that:
The core principles established include the Court's willingness to condone procedural delays when adequately explained and when there is no substantial objection from the opposing party. The final determination on the primary issue allows the petitioner to pursue their appeal, ensuring that the matter is considered on its merits. The Writ Petition was dismissed with liberty, and no costs were awarded. Connected Miscellaneous Petitions were closed.
|
