Disposed

Great Heights Developers LLP v. Additional Commissioner

Madras HC1 Feb 2024WP/1324/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition against a GST order imposing penalty and interest. The petitioner had filed an appeal beyond the 120-day outer limit due to illness. The court noted the tax was fully paid and the delay was only 24 days, and directed the Appellate Authority to receive and decide the appeal on merits.

What did the court decide?

Appellate Authority directed to receive and dispose of the appeal on merits if filed within ten days.

Great Heights Developers LLP Vs Additional Commissioner — GST and Indirect Tax | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.No.1324 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 01.02.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY

¶6

W.P.No.1324 of 2024

¶7

and W.M.P.No.1358 of 2024

¶8

Great Heights Developers LLP Represented by its Partner Sunil Pitaliya No.42, 4^th Floor, Sindur Plaza Montieh Road, Egmore, Chennai 600 008. ... Petitioner

¶9

-vs-

¶10

1.Additional Commissioner Office of the Commissioner Of CGST & Central Excise, Chennai North Commissionerate No.26/1, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Chennai 600 034.

¶11

2.Commissioner of GST Appeal – I, GST Bhawan, Main Building 2^nd Floor, No.26/1, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Chennai 600 034.

¶12

... Respondents

¶13

1/6

¶14

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

¶15

W.P.No.1324 of 2024

¶16

PRAYER

¶17

PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the impugned proceedings of the first respondent passed in Order In Original No.44/2023 CH.N (ADC) (GST) dated 14.08.2023 and quash the same insofar as imposition of penalty U/s.73(9) read with Section 73(7) of the CGST/SGST Acts, 2017 for Rs.30,98,857/- and interest under Section 50(1).

¶18

For Petitioner : Mr.N.Murali

¶19

For Respondents : Mr.Rajinish Pathiyil, Sr. SC

¶20

¶21

ORDER

¶22

The petitioner challenges order in original dated 14.08.2023 insofar as the imposition of penalty and interest under Section 73(9) and Section 73(7) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017

¶23

2/6

¶24

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

¶25

W.P.No.1324 of 2024

¶26

(the CGST Act) are concerned. The petitioner states that pursuant to the show cause notice, the impugned assessment order was issued on 14.08.2023. Such order was received by the petitioner on 16.08.2023. Accordingly, the appeal should have been filed within 90 days thereof. It is further stated that the appeal could not be filed in time both on account of the petitioner being diagnosed with septic shock and on account of the consequential difficulties in following up with the consultant. As a result, it is stated that the time limits for filing an appeal with an application to condone delay expired on 16.12.2023.

¶27

Under Section 107 of the CGST Act, the Appellate Authority does not have the power to condone delay beyond 120 days. In this case, the period of further delay is only 24 days and the petitioner has provided cogent reasons to explain such delay. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner has paid the entire tax liability and the proposed appeal is limited to penalty and interest.

¶28

3/6

¶29

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

¶30

W.P.No.1324 of 2024

¶31

Therefore, the Appellate Authority is directed to receive and

¶32

dispose of the appeal on merits if the appeal is received within a maximum period of ten days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶33

W.P.No.1324 of 2024 is disposed of on the above terms. No

¶34

costs. Consequently, W.M.P.No.1358 of 2024 is closed.

¶35

01.02.2024

¶36

rna Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No Neutral Citation: Yes / No

¶37

¶38

1.Additional Commissioner Office of the Commissioner Of CGST & Central Excise, Chennai North Commissionerate No.26/1, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Chennai 600 034.

¶39

2.Commissioner of GST Appeal – I, GST Bhawan, Main Building 2^nd Floor,

¶40

4/6

¶41

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

¶42

W.P.No.1324 of 2024

¶43

No.26/1, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Chennai 600 034.

¶44

SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY,J

¶45

rna

¶46

W.P.No.1324 of 2024 and W.M.P.No.1358 of 2024

¶47

5/6

¶48

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

W.P.No.1324 of 2024

01.02.2024

6/6

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

Great Heights Developers LLP v. Additional Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Great Heights Developers LLP v. Additional Commissioner

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

M/S. Metal Trade Incorporation Vs Assistant Commissioner (St) (Fac)

A.R Metallurgicals Pvt. Ltd.. Vs the Assistant Commissioner (St) (Fac)

Pavitra Rajesh Vs The Income Tax officer

Manjula Jaganathan Hariprasad Vs The Assessment Unit

F1 Auto Components Private Limited Vs the Deputy Commissioner (St)

Ak Imports and Exports Vs the Commissioner of Customs (Chennai Ii) Import