Tvl SLV Concrete Vs State Tax Officer
Date: July 7, 2025
Subject Matter
Delay in filing the appeal caused by pendency of rectification application: Taxpayer permitted to file appeal within three weeks
Summary
The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging an assessment order dated November 8, 2024. The petitioner's counsel explained that the petitioner had initially attempted to file an appeal but, being unaware of the proper procedure on the GST portal, failed to manually change the "admitted liability" option to "disputed liabilities." Instead, the petitioner filed a rectification application, which was dismissed on May 9, 2025. The pendency of this rectification application caused a delay in filing the appeal.
The petitioner, while having a larger prayer in the petition, restricted the request to a simple liberty to file an appeal, which the Special Government Pleader for the respondent did not object to. The petitioner also expressed a willingness to pay a total of 15% of the disputed tax amount (10% as the statutory pre-deposit and an additional 5%).
The court dismissed the writ petition. However, it granted the petitioner the liberty to file an appeal before the concerned Appellate Authority within three weeks from the date of the order. This is subject to the petitioner paying 15% of the disputed tax amount to the respondent. The Appellate Authority is directed to consider this appeal on its merits and in accordance with the law, providing a sufficient opportunity to the petitioner, without dismissing it on the grounds of limitation.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 08.11.2024 passed by the respondent.
2.Mr. C.Harsha Raj, learned Special Government Pleader, takes notice on behalf of the respondent. By consent of the parties, the main writ petition is taken up for disposal at the admission stage itself.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in this case, aggrieved over the impugned order, the petitioner had made an attempt to file an appeal against the said order. While filing such appeal, the option of “admitted liability” will be mandatorily enabled in the portal, which means, the petitioner had admitted the entire tax liabilities. The said option of “admitted liabilities” has to be manually changed into “disputed liabilities” by the petitioner. However, being unaware of the said procedure, the petitioner filed a rectification application, which was dismissed vide order dated 09.05.2025. Due to the pendency of said rectification application, the petitioner was unable to file the appeal within time.
4. Further, he would submit that now, the petitioner is intend to file an appeal against the said assessment order. Therefore, though he had sought for larger relief in this petition, he had restricted his relief to the extent to request this Court to grant liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal.
5. On the other hand, the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondent would submit that there is no bar for the petitioner to file an appeal against the assessment order and hence, he requests this Court to pass any appropriate orders with regard to the filing of appeal on terms.
6. In reply, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is now willing to pay 15% of the disputed tax amount to the respondent (10% of disputed tax amount towards statutory pre-deposit for filing the appeal along with additional 5% of disputed tax amount).
7. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and and the learned Special Government Pleader for the respondent and also perused the materials available on record.
8. In the case on hand, initially, the petitioner had made an attempt to file an appeal against the impugned assessment order. While filing such appeal in the portal, the option of “admitted liability” will be mandatorily enabled, which has to be manually changed into “disputed liabilities” by the petitioner. However, being unaware of the said procedure, the petitioner filed a rectification application, which was dismissed vide order dated 09.05.2025. Due to the pendency of said rectification application, the petitioner was unable to file the appeal within time.
9. Now, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that now the petitioner is willing to file an appeal against the impugned assessment order dated 08.11.2024 passed by the respondent and he has restricted his relief and requested this Court to grant liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal against the impugned assessment order since it will be sufficient to meet out the case of the petitioner.
10.Further, it was submitted that the petitioner is now willing to pay 15% of the disputed tax amount to the respondent. Therefore, though this petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 08.11.2024, considering the submissions made by the petitioner, this Court is inclined to dismiss the present petition by granting liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal against the impugned assessment order.
11. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are also closed.
12. While dismissing this petition, this Court grants liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal before the concerned Appellate Authority, within a period of 3 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order, subject to the payment of 15% of the disputed tax amount to the respondent (10% of disputed tax amount towards statutory pre-deposit for filing the appeal along with additional 5% of disputed tax amount). In such case, the Appellate Authority shall consider the said appeal filed by the petitioner on its own merits and in accordance with law, by providing sufficient opportunity to the petitioner, without pressing for limitation.