Madras High Court Allows Company To File Statutory Appeal After Limitation Period Noting That It Could Not Check GST Portal Due To Lack Of Employees

Justice C Saravanan observed that though the Supreme Court has held that orders could not be challenged under Article 226, the court was inclined to consider the company’s case and condone the delay of 58 days. The court thus directed the company to file the Statutory Appeal within a period of 30 days from the date of the order which shall then be considered by the Appellate Commissioner on merits.

“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 said.

The court also instructed the company to pre-deposit the required amount as per Section 107 of the GST Act, 2017.

The plea was filed by SRM Engineering Construction Corporation Limited. The company was first issued a notice in GST DRC 01 on 19.12.2022. However, since the company had failed to respond to the notice and since there was a mismatch between GSTR1 and GSTR 3B and difference in ITC between GSTR 3B and GSTR 2A, the assessment order was issued.

The Assistant Manager of the company, in his affidavit explained that the business of the company was on a decline and most of the staffs who were active during the companies operations till 2020 had left the company. He also informed the court that the company was currently existing merely to sell the completed works, land stock and to collect its overdues receivable.

The Assistant Manager also informed the court that since there were only a few employees, the company did not frequently log into the GST portal and in the process had not noticed the notice issued by the Department and thus could not respond to the same. it was submitted that the company came to know about the demand only upon receiving the recovery notice and immediately had filed a representation. However, this representation was not considered and the order was issued.

Considering the company’s position, the court was inclined to allow their plea and directed it to file the appeal.

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr.N.Murali

Counsel for the Respondent: Mrs.K.Vasanthamala Government Advocate

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 303

Case Title: SRM Engineering Construction Corporation Limited v. The Assistant Commissioner (ST) (FAC)

Case No: W.P.No.25013 of 2023