M/S. Tamil Nadu Traders vs. The State Tax Officer (Fac)

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Tamil Nadu Traders, filed a writ petition challenging an assessment order dated 18.11.2025 passed by the State Tax Officer (FAC) and a consequential order dated 27.03.2026 passed by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT). The petitioner contended that both orders were cryptic, non-speaking, illegal, arbitrary, and passed without jurisdiction. Specifically, the petitioner sought to quash the appellate order and requested a fresh order after an opportunity for a personal hearing, as contemplated under Section 75(4) of the TNGST Act, 2017. The assessment order was for the tax period 2021-22. The appeal was filed on 11.03.2026.

Held

The Court allowed the writ petition. The primary issue was the Appellate Deputy Commissioner's rejection of the petitioner's appeal solely on the ground of delay. The Court observed that the assessment order was dated 18.11.2025, and the appeal was filed on 11.03.2026. It was noted that the appeal filing period, including the condonable delay, would have encompassed this date. Therefore, the Appellate Deputy Commissioner should have condoned the delay and considered the appeal on its merits. The Court found that the appellate authority erred by rejecting the appeal merely on the basis of delay. The ratio decidendi is that appellate authorities must consider appeals on merits if filed within the permissible time frame, including condonable delays, and cannot reject them summarily for delay if it falls within such limits. The Court set aside the order of the Appellate Authority dated 27.03.2026 and remanded the matter back to the second respondent for fresh consideration. The appeal was to be treated as within time and disposed of expeditiously on merits.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Appellate Deputy Commissioner erred in rejecting the petitioner's appeal solely on the grounds of delay, despite the appeal being filed within the condonable period as per the TNGST Act, 2017? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner argued that the assessment order was passed on 18.11.2025 and the appeal was filed on 11.03.2026. They contended that this filing date was within the permissible period for filing an appeal, including the condonable delay period. Therefore, the Appellate Deputy Commissioner ought to have condoned the delay and adjudicated the appeal on its merits. The petitioner also argued that the orders were cryptic, non-speaking, illegal, arbitrary, and passed without jurisdiction, and that they were denied an opportunity for a personal hearing as mandated by Section 75(4) of the TNGST Act, 2017. Respondents' Argument: The respondents, represented by the Government Standing Counsel, did not present any specific arguments against the petitioner's claims regarding the delay and the merits of the appeal. The judgment notes that the appeal was rejected merely stating there was a delay.