2023 (3) GSTPanacea 13 HC Madras
Case Title | Jony Electric India Engineering Pvt. Ltd vs Joint Commissioner (GST and Central Excise, Appeal-I) |
Court | Madras High Court |
Honourable Judges | JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH |
Citation | 2023 (3) GSTPanacea 13 HC Madras W.P. No. 7000/2023 |
Judgement Date | 07-March-2023 |
In W.P.No.7000 of 2023, M/s.Jony Electricity India Engineering Private Limited challenged an order passed by the Joint Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, the appellate authority under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Act, 2017. The petitioner, a Private Limited Company engaged in Engineering services, was registered under the provisions of the Act but due to an alleged misunderstanding between the company and the erstwhile Director, the change of name of authorized signatory was not effected in time and hence the returns of turnover under the Act could not be filed.
Tax Professionals don't take compliance
Judgement
High Court rejected the Writ on the ground that the petitioner, to be noted, has set out no explanation, let alone justifiable explanation, for the condonation of even the one month extension statutorily provided and thus the further delay of 6 months over and above the statutory limitation is fatal to its case.
The Assessing Authority of the petitioner issued a notice of cancellation of registration on 02.12.2021, initiated online through the official portal. The petitioner neither submitted any response nor appeared for a personal hearing that had been fixed in the aforesaid notice. R2 passed an order dated 10.01.2022 cancelling the registration of the petitioner. The petitioner claims to have thereafter approached the second respondent seeking revocation of the cancellation. An appeal had thus been filed on 18.08.2022 before R1 belatedly.
The provisions of Section 107 of the Act deal with ‘Appeal’ and 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.
The Court held that in light of the above admitted position, the dismissal of the appeal by R1 is seen to be in order. The petitioner has set out no explanation, let alone justifiable explanation, for the condonation of even the one month extension statutorily provided and thus the further delay of 6 months over and above the statutory limitation is fatal to its case. The impugned order was confirmed and the Writ Petition was dismissed.
Download Pdf:
M/s.Jony Electricity India Engineering Private Limited,
For Reference Visit: