2024 (10) TMI 437 - HC - GST

Time limitation - dismissal of appeal on the ground that the appeal was filed even beyond the condonable period of limitation - mismatch between GSTR - 3B and GSTR - 1 - HELD THAT - The first respondent observed that there is no provision under the said Act to condone the delay and entertain the appeal. The first respondent is well justified in dismissing the appeal itself on the ground that it had been presented beyond the condonable period of limitation stipulated under the said Act. In the instant case, on going through the assessment order, it is seen that a total liability of Rs. 2,47,398/- together with penalty has been imposed against the petitioner on the ground that there was a mismatch of liability between GSTR - 3B and GSTR - 1. The petitioner has come up with a clear case that no opportunity was given to them before passing the assessment order. Hence, they filed an appeal before the first respondent. However, the appeal itself was dismissed by the impugned order as it was filed beyond the condonable period. However, this Court is inclined to afford an opportunity to the petitioner by putting the petitioner on terms. The impugned order passed by the first respondent is hereby set aside. The delay in filing the appeal before the first respondent is condoned - Petition allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to dismissal of appeal due to delay in filing within limitation period under Tamil Nadu Goods & Service Tax Act, 2017.

Analysis:
The writ petition was filed to challenge the order dismissing the appeal as it was filed beyond the condonable period of limitation under the Tamil Nadu Goods & Service Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner had filed the appeal against an assessment order alleging a mismatch between GSTR - 3B and GSTR - 1. The appeal was accompanied by a petition to condone the delay in filing. The respondents contended that the appeal was filed after the prescribed limitation period, and thus, the first respondent rightfully dismissed the appeal. The petitioner had made a 10% payment towards the mandatory pre-deposit when filing the appeal.

The High Court considered the submissions of both parties and reviewed the impugned order passed by the first respondent. The first respondent had observed that there was no provision in the Act to condone the delay and entertain the appeal. However, the Court noted that the petitioner had a genuine case as they were not given an opportunity before the assessment order was passed, leading to the appeal being filed late. The Court decided to set aside the impugned order, condone the delay in filing the appeal, and directed the first respondent to take the appeal on file. The first respondent was instructed to issue notice to the petitioner, provide a personal hearing, and pass final orders on the appeal within three months from the date of the Court's order.

Conclusively, the writ petition was allowed with the above directions, and no costs were imposed. The connected Writ Miscellaneous Petition was closed as a result of the judgment.