The Madras High Court recently granted permission to a company to submit a Statutory Appeal against an Assessment Order issued by the Assistant Commissioner (ST) (FAC), despite the expiration of the appeal’s time limit. This decision was made in light of the company’s inability to access the notice on the GST portal.
Justice C Saravanan observed that, while the Supreme Court has established that orders cannot typically be contested under Article 226, the court was inclined to review the company’s situation and excuse the 58-day delay. Consequently, the court instructed the company to file the Statutory Appeal within 30 days from the order date, which the Appellate Commissioner would then evaluate based on its merits.
The court mentioned, “Considering the above, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned. The petitioner is directed to file a Statutory Appeal within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Appellate Commissioner shall number the appeal and dispose the same on merits in its turn,”
The court also demanded the company to pre-deposit the required amount under Section 107 of the GST Act, 2017.
SRM Engineering Construction Corporation Limited filed the appeal. The company initially furnished the notice in GST DRC 01 on 19.12.2022. But, as the company failed to reply to the notice and as there was a mismatch between GSTR1 and GSTR 3B and a difference in ITC between GSTR 3B and GSTR 2A, the assessment order was issued.
In his affidavit, the Assistant Manager of the company clarified that the company had experienced a significant decline in its business, resulting in the departure of most of the staff who had been active up until 2020. He also informed the court that the company was currently in existence primarily to sell completed projects, and existing land stock, and to collect outstanding receivables.
The Assistant Manager further explained that due to the reduced workforce, the company did not frequently access the GST portal and, as a result, had yet to notice the notice issued by the Department. Consequently, they were unable to respond to it. It was emphasized that the company only became aware of the demand when they received the recovery notice, and they promptly filed a representation. Unfortunately, this representation was not considered, and the order was subsequently issued.
Acknowledging the company’s circumstances, the court was inclined to grant their request and directed them to proceed with filing the appeal.
| Case Title | SRM Engineering Construction Corporation Limited |
| Citation | W.P.No.25013 of 2023 W.M.P.Nos.24441 and 24442 of 2023 |
| Date | 24.08.2023 |
| For Petitioner | Mr.N.Murali |
| For Respondent | Mrs.K.Vasanthamala Government Advocate |
| Madras High Court | Read Order |
