Tvl. Teeam Score vs. The State Tax Officer

Facts

The petitioner, Tvl. Teeam Score, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 27.03.2026 passed by the Deputy Commissioner (ST) (GST) (Appeals), Erode. The petitioner sought to quash this order and direct the respondent to restore their statutory appeal filed on 16.03.2026, condone any delay, and dispose of the appeal on merits. The petitioner's appeal was rejected by the Appellate Authority because they failed to file a separate application for condonation of delay, despite the delay being within the condonable period. The assessment year in question is 2021-22.

Held

The Court held that the rejection of the petitioner's appeal by the Appellate Authority was an error. The Court found that the petitioner's failure to file a separate application for condonation of delay was an error on their part, but since the delay was within the condonable limit as prescribed under Section 107 of the CGST Act, it could be condoned. The Court reasoned that instead of directing the petitioner to file a formal application for condonation, it was appropriate to condone the delay directly, considering the nature and extent of the delay. The ratio decidendi is that High Courts, in exercise of their writ jurisdiction, can condone delays in filing appeals under GST laws if such delays are within the statutory condonable period and the failure to seek condonation was an inadvertent error, to uphold the principles of natural justice and ensure appeals are decided on merits. The impugned order was set aside, the delay was condoned, and the Appellate Authority was directed to take the appeal on file and dispose of it on merits.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Appellate Authority was justified in rejecting the statutory appeal solely on the ground of the petitioner's failure to file a separate application for condonation of delay, when the delay was within the condonable period under Section 107 of the CGST Act? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the rejection of their appeal was illegal and arbitrary, violating principles of natural justice. They contended that the failure to file a separate application for condonation of delay was an inadvertent error, and since the delay was within the permissible limit, the Appellate Authority should have condoned it and considered the appeal on merits. They relied on the fact that the delay was within the condonable period as per Section 107. Revenue's contention: The respondent, represented by the Additional Government Pleader, submitted that if an opportunity were to be granted, the petitioner should be directed to file an application for condonation of delay.