M/S. Immanuvel vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)
Held
The Court held that the appeal filed by the petitioner was indeed one day beyond the condonable period of limitation. However, considering the marginal delay, the Court was inclined to quash the order of the second respondent, the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), which dismissed the appeal on the ground of limitation. The Court reasoned that a dismissal solely on a minor delay beyond the condonable period would be unjust. The ratio decidendi is that High Courts, in writ jurisdiction, can condone marginal delays in filing appeals beyond the statutory condonable period, especially when the merits of the case warrant consideration. The Court directed the second respondent to restore the appeal to its file and pass final orders on merits and in accordance with law, after hearing the petitioner, without reference to the period of limitation. The assessment order passed by the first respondent was not adjudicated upon on its merits.
Facts
The petitioner, M/s. Immanuvel, challenged an assessment order dated 19.02.2026 passed by the Assistant Commissioner (ST) and a subsequent order dated 02.07.2026 by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT). The petitioner filed an appeal before the second respondent on 19.06.2026, depositing 10% of the disputed tax. The appeal was dismissed by the second respondent on the grounds of limitation, as it was filed one day beyond the condonable period. The petitioner sought to quash these orders, contending they were passed without jurisdiction and in violation of statutory provisions.
Key Issues
1. Whether the appeal filed by the petitioner before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT) was barred by limitation, considering it was filed one day beyond the condonable period, and if so, whether the dismissal of the appeal on this ground was justified? The petitioner argued that the delay was marginal and beyond the condonable period, and therefore, the appeal should not have been dismissed solely on the ground of limitation. The petitioner sought relief from the High Court to have the appeal considered on its merits. The revenue, represented by the Government Advocate (Taxes), did not record any specific arguments in the judgment regarding the limitation period or the merits of the case. The judgment does not explicitly mention any specific statutory provisions or precedents argued by either side concerning the limitation period for appeals.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
__________ Page1 of 4 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 25-08-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C. SARAVANAN and W.M.P.(MD)No.18272 of 2026 M/s. Immanuvel, GSTIN 33AALPI0895A1Z0, 45, Madurai Main Road, Thonugal, Virudhunagar ..Petitioner(s) Vs
The Assistant Commissioner (ST) Commercial Tax Builiding, Aruppukottai.
The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT) Commercial Tax Building, Virudhunagar. ..Respondent(s) Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the assessment order in form DRC 07 passed by the 1st respondent in GSTIN 33AALPI0895A1Z0 /2019-20 dated 19.02.2026 followed by consequential order passed by the 2nd respondent in Form GST APL 02 Ref. No. ZD330726010227O dated 02.07.2026 and quash the same as it is without jurisdiction and clear violation of statutory provisions or pass such other orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and thus render justice. For Petitioner(s): Mr.S.Karunakar For Respondent(s): Ms.P.Sudarkodi Nachiar Government Advocate (Taxes) https://ww
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.