Dismissed

M/s.Johy Electricity India Engineering Private Ltd. v. The Appellate Authority

Madras HC7 Mar 2023WP/7000/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner, a GST dealer, filed a writ petition seeking quashing of an appellate order dismissing its belated appeal. The appeal was filed six months and thirty days after the statutory limitation under Section 107 of the TN GST Act. The High Court dismissed the petition as the appeal's delay was fatal to the petitioner's case. No costs awarded.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed confirming the impugned order dismissing the belated appeal. No costs awarded.

M/s.Johy Electricity India Engineering Private Ltd. Vs… — GST and Indirect Tax | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P.No.7000 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

Dated: 07.03.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH

¶6

W.P.No.7000 of 2023

¶7

M/s.Jony Electricity India Engineering Private Limited, Represented by Director Subhadra W/o Narasimma Raghavan B-3 Monisha Sri Hari Apartment, Ragavendra Salai, Chitlapakkam, Chennai-600 064.

¶8

... Petitioner

¶9

Vs.

¶10

1.The Appellate Authority The Joint Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Appeals-I, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 034.

¶11

2.Superintendent of GST & Central Excise, Egmore Division, Chennai North Commissionerate Chennai. .... Respondents

¶12

Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records from the 1st Respondent and quashing the impugned order of the 1st Respondent dated 07.12.2022 in Order-in-appeal No.328/2022 (GSTA-I) (JC).

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Sundar For Respondents : Mr.A.P.Srinivas Senior Standing Counsel

¶14

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶15

W.P.No.7000 of 2023

¶16

O R D E R

¶17

Mr.A.P.Srinivas, learned Senior Standing Counsel accepts notice for

¶18

the respondents and is armed with instructions to proceed with the matter even at this juncture. Hence, by consent of both sides, this Writ Petition is disposed finally even at the stage of admission.

¶19

2.The petitioner has challenged an order passed by the Joint Commissioner of GST & Central Excise/R1, the appellate authority under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Act, 2017 (in short 'Act').

¶20

3.The petitioner is a Private Limited Company engaged in Engineering services, and registered under the provisions of the Act. While this is so, due to an alleged misunderstanding between the company and the erstwhile Director, the change of name of authorised signatory was not effected in time and hence the returns of turnover under the Act could not be filed.

¶21

In light of the statutory provisions requiring filing of statutory returns within the periods stipulated and the petitioner's admitted defaults, the second respondent, i.e., the Assessing Authority of the petitioner, issued a notice of cancellation of registration on 02.12.2021, initiated online through the official portal.

¶22

The petitioner neither submitted any response nor appeared for a https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis personal hearing that had been fixed in the aforesaid notice. Though there is

¶23

W.P.No.7000 of 2023

¶24

a tentative statement of the petitioner that he had been unaware of the same,

¶25

this Court has taken a view in W.P.No.25666 of 2022 that service effected online in terms of Section 169(1)(d) of the Act, constitutes valid service. R2 thus proceeded to pass an order dated 10.01.2022 cancelling the registration of the petitioner, also uploaded on the same day in the official portal.

¶26

The petitioner claims to have thereafter approached the second respondent seeking revocation of the cancellation. He was informed by the Assessing Authority that the request for revocation was made after the statutory period and hence proceeded to file an appeal before the appellate authority. An appeal had thus been filed on 18.08.2022 before R1 belatedly.

¶27

The provisions of Section 107 of the Act deal with 'Appeal' and

¶28

provide that an appeal be filed as against any order of the State Goods and Services Tax Act within a period of 90 days. There is a period of one month after the aforesaid period of 90 days, for which the authority may grant condonation, if convinced by the explanation set out by the assessee. The appeal of petitioner has been filed after a period of 6 months, over and above the statutory limitation of 90 + 30 days.

¶29

In light of the above admitted position, the dismissal of the appeal by R1 is seen to be in order. The petitioner, to be noted, has set out no explanation, let alone justifiable explanation, for the condonation of even

¶30

the one month extension statutorily provided and thus the further delay of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶31

months over and above the statutory limitation is fatal to its case.

¶32

W.P.No.7000 of 2023

¶33

Dr.ANITA SUMANTH,J.

¶34

The impugned order is confirmed and this Writ Petition stands

¶35

dismissed. No costs.

¶36

07.03.2023

¶37

Index:Yes/No Speaking order Neutral Citation : Yes vs

¶38

¶39

1.The Appellate Authority The Joint Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Appeals-I, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 034.

¶40

2.Superintendent of GST & Central Excise, Egmore Division, Chennai North Commissionerate Chennai.

¶41

W.P.No.7000 of 2023

¶42

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

M/s.Johy Electricity India Engineering Private Ltd. v. The Appellate Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s.Johy Electricity India Engineering Private Ltd. v. The Appellate Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

J.Nagendran Vs The assistant commissioner

M/s. Elexa Intermediate chemical Co., Vs The Commissioner of customs ( Sez)

Mariasanjeevee Anthoniswamy Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

M/s. Pushkar Properties Private Limited, Vs The State Tax Officer

N.a.Irudhayaraj Vs The Commissioner

Nirmala Sankaran Vs Income Tax Officer