2024 (6) TMI 1376 - HC - GST

Maintainability of petition - time limitation - petitioner has approached this Court after the lapse of limitation for filing the appeal under Section 107 of the respective GST enactments - HELD THAT - Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondent, The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (GST) Madurai, camp at Tirunelveli is suo motu impleaded by this Court as second respondent in this writ petition and this Court is inclined to dispose of this writ petition at the time of admission by condoning the delay in filing the appeal before the second respondent. The Writ Petition stands allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to impugned order under TNGST Act, 2017 for assessment year 2017-18; Lapse of limitation for filing appeal under Section 107 of GST enactments.

Analysis:
The petitioner filed a writ petition against the impugned order dated 29.12.2023 under the TNGST Act, 2017, for the assessment year 2017-18, despite the lapse of limitation for filing an appeal under Section 107 of the relevant GST enactments. The affidavit submitted by the petitioner detailed various payments made, including late fees under the Amnesty Scheme, output tax on commission and payouts, interest, and recoveries made by the GST Department. The petitioner's counsel requested an opportunity to remedy the situation before the Appellate forum.

Analysis:
The Additional Government Pleader representing the respondent argued that the writ petition lacked merit and should be dismissed, citing a precedent from the Honorable Supreme Court. After considering both parties' submissions, the Court suo motu impleaded the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (GST) Madurai as the second respondent in the case. The Court decided to dispose of the writ petition at the time of admission by condoning the delay in filing the appeal before the second respondent. The Court directed the petitioner to file an appeal within 30 days from receiving a copy of the order, with the second respondent instructed to consider and dispose of the appeal on its merits promptly.

Outcome:
The Court allowed the writ petition with the direction for the petitioner to file an appeal before the second respondent within 30 days. If the appeal is filed within the specified time, the second respondent is required to handle it expeditiously and in accordance with the law. The judgment concluded by stating that no costs were awarded, and connected Miscellaneous Petitions were closed as a result of the decision.