Teeam Score vs. The State Tax Officer
Facts
The petitioner, Teeam Score, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 27.03.2026 passed by the Deputy Commissioner (CT) (GST) (Appeals), the second respondent. The petitioner sought to quash this order and requested the restoration of their statutory appeal filed on 16.03.2026, with a direction to condone any delay and dispose of the appeal on merits. The appeal was rejected by the Appellate Authority because the petitioner had not filed a separate application for condonation of delay, despite the delay falling within the condonable period. The petitioner contended that this omission was an error on their part.
Held
The Court held that the petitioner's failure to file a separate application for condonation of delay was an error, but considering the nature of the delay, which was within the condonable limit of one month as prescribed under Section 107 of the CGST Act, the delay could be condoned by the High Court itself. The Court reasoned that instead of directing the petitioner to file a formal application, it could directly condone the delay. The impugned order dated 27.03.2026 was set aside. The Court directed that the appeal be treated as having the delay condoned, taken on file by the Appellate Authority, and considered on its own merits and disposed of in accordance with law. No costs were awarded.
Key Issues
1. Whether the Appellate Authority was justified in rejecting the statutory appeal on the ground of non-filing of a separate application for condonation of delay, when the delay was within the condonable period as per Section 107 of the CGST Act? Petitioner's argument: The petitioner argued that the omission to file a separate application for condonation of delay was an error and that the delay was within the condonable limit of one month. They sought to have this error condoned and their appeal heard on merits. Revenue's argument: The Revenue, through the learned 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.
Sections Cited
Section 107
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated: 06.04.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY and W.M.P(MD)Nos.7508 and 7509 of 2026 Teeam Score, Represented by its Partner Karur Kandasamy Ranjith, GSTIN 33AAHFT7031M1ZZ, Plot No. C-30, Door No.4/148, Tex City, Karur Textiles Park, Thalppatti, Karur – 639 003. ... Petitioner Vs.
The State Tax Officer, Karur -4 Assessment Circle, Commercial Taxes Buildings, No.1, Kamathenu Nagar, Pugalur Road, Karur 639001. 2. The Deputy Commissioner (CT) (GST) (Appeals) Erode and Salem, Commercial Tax Buildings, 3 Floor, Erode. ...Respondents 1 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of CERTIORARIFIED MANDAMUS to call for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the 2 Respondent in Form GSTAPL-02 bearing Reference No. Z2D330326252242S dated 27.03.2026 (ARN No.AD3303260465067), quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice, and consequently direct the 2
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.