Tvl Thangammal Petroleum vs. The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (GST)
Held
The Court quashed the impugned order dated 01.06.2026 passed by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (GST). The Court reasoned that the delay in filing the appeal was marginal, being only one day. Consequently, the case was remitted back to the first respondent. The first respondent was directed to pass a fresh order on merits in lieu of the impugned order within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Court observed that the writ petition was allowed with these directions. No costs were imposed.
Facts
The petitioner, Tvl Thangammal Petroleum, represented by its Proprietrix Sumitha Jayachandran, filed a writ petition before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court. The petitioner was challenging an order dated 01.06.2026 passed by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (GST), Madurai and Tirunelveli (the first respondent). This order had dismissed the petitioner's appeal against an Assessment Order dated 20.11.2025. The dismissal was solely on the grounds of limitation. The petitioner stated that the appeal was filed on 20.03.2026, which was one day beyond the expiry of the limitation period, including the condonable period, which would have ended on 19.03.2026. The petitioner sought to quash the impugned order and direct the first respondent to entertain the appeal on merits.
Key Issues
1. Whether the Appellate Deputy Commissioner was justified in dismissing the petitioner's appeal on the sole ground of limitation, given that the delay was only one day? (Question of law and fact, turning on the interpretation of limitation provisions and the discretion to condone delay). Petitioner's contentions: The petitioner argued that the delay in filing the appeal was marginal, amounting to only one day. They contended that the impugned order of dismissal on limitation grounds was cryptic, non-speaking, illegal, arbitrary, and without jurisdiction. They prayed for the quashing of the order and a direction to the Appellate Deputy Commissioner to entertain the appeal within the limitation period and dispose of it on merits after affording a hearing. Respondents' contentions: The respondents, represented by the Special Government Pleader, took notice of the writ petition. The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondents beyond their appearance and notice.
Sections Cited
FORM GST APL-02
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 02.09.2026 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN and W.M.P.(MD) Nos.18898 & 18899 of 2026 Tvl Thangammal Petroleum, rep. by its Proprietrix Sumitha Jayachandran. ... Petitioner Vs
The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (GST), Madurai and Tirunelveli, 1st Floor, Commercial Taxes Buildings, South High Ground Round, Palayamcottai, Tirunelveli-627002. 2. The State Tax Officer, Nagercoil (Rural) Assessment Circle, Commercial Taxes Buildings, Nagercoil, Kanniyakumari. ... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records on the file of the 1st Respondent in FORM GST APL-02 (ARN AD330326062401J) dated 1/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 01/06/2026 for the assessment year 2021-22 and to quash the same as cryptic, non-speaking, illegal, arbitrary, wholly without jurisdiction consequently, direct the 1st respondent to entertain the appeal filed by the petitioner as within limitation,
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Madras High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.