Facts of the Case

Tvl Fabro Gaarden (GSTIN 33ADLPN3238P1Z3), Karur, had its vehicle intercepted on 04.12.2023, and paid the demanded amount under protest to secure release of the vehicle and goods. An adverse order was passed by the State Tax Officer (Roving Squad) on 13.10.2024, allegedly for want of an e-invoice with the driver. Since the web copy of the order was not immediately available, the petitioner filed a manual appeal before the Deputy Commissioner (ST)(GST)(Appeal) on 04.01.2025 itself, and after obtaining the web copy, filed another appeal on 21.07.2025. The second appeal, filed vide ARN AD3307250583235, was rejected as belated by order dated 23.07.2025, resulting in a penalty of Rs 5,15,412 being retained.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether an appeal manually filed in time, before the web copy of the order became available, can be treated as belated merely because a further copy filed later, after the web copy was obtained, was beyond limitation.
  2. Whether newly available e-invoice evidence, not possessed by the driver at interception, can be considered by the appellate authority.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • A manual appeal had already been filed on 04.01.2025 — well within time — supported by an acknowledgment card on record, so the petitioner could not be blamed for filing a further appeal only after the web copy became available.
  • The action was taken because the driver did not carry the e-invoice at the time of interception, but the e-invoice is now available with the petitioner.
  • Relied on Kumar Cargo Solution v. State of U.P., [2024] 105 GST 923 (Allahabad), supporting relief where documentary lapses at interception are later cured.

Respondent's Arguments

  • The Government Advocate did not dispute the timeline but maintained that the appeal placed formally before the appellate authority, filed after the web copy became available, was beyond the limitation period.

Court Order / Findings

  • The Court held that once the petitioner had filed a manual appeal in time, it could not be penalised merely because it later filed another appeal, using the web copy, after limitation had technically expired.
  • The Court set aside the order rejecting the appeal as belated, remitted the matter to the appellate authority, and directed it to number the appeal and decide it on merits, taking into account the e-invoice now available with the petitioner.
  • The appellate authority was directed to dispose of the appeal within three months, after considering the additional material and all other contentions of the petitioner.
  • The impugned order was set aside only insofar as it related to the second respondent (the appellate authority's rejection).

Important Clarification

  • Where a taxpayer demonstrably files a manual appeal within the limitation period, subsequent confusion arising from portal timelines for the web copy cannot be held against the taxpayer to reject the appeal as time-barred.
  • Documentary lapses at the point of interception, such as a missing e-invoice, can be cured by producing the document later before the appellate authority, which must consider it on merits.

Sections Involved

  • Section 107, GST Act, 2017 – appeal against an order under Section 129 (detention/penalty for e-way bill/documentation lapses).
  • Section 129, GST Act, 2017 – detention, seizure and release of goods and conveyances in transit.

Decision – In Favour of

The decision is in favour of the assessee, Fabro Gaarden — the rejection of the appeal as belated was set aside and the appellate authority directed to decide the appeal afresh on merits.

Case Details

Madurai Bench of Madras High Court – W.P(MD)No.24478 of 2025 with W.M.P(MD)Nos.19208 & 19209 of 2025 – Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice G.R. Swaminathan – Order dated 10.09.2025.

Link to Download the Order

Click here to view/download the full order

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.