Tvl. Meenakshi Agencies vs. The Superintendent

Facts

The petitioner, Tvl. Meenakshi Agencies, challenged an assessment order dated 28.02.2023 passed by the Superintendent of CGST & Central Excise (first respondent) for the financial year 2017-18. The petitioner failed to file an appeal within the prescribed time limit due to illness, resulting in a delay of 140 days beyond the condonable period. Consequently, the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) (second respondent) rejected the appeal vide an order dated 06.01.2026 on the grounds of limitation. The petitioner had already paid the statutory pre-deposit and expressed willingness to pay an additional 10% of the disputed tax amount to have the delay condoned.

Held

The Court held that the reason assigned by the petitioner for the delay in filing the appeal, namely ill-health, appeared to be genuine. Consequently, the Court was inclined to condone the delay. The Court set aside the appeal rejection order dated 06.01.2026 passed by the second respondent and condoned the delay of 140 days, subject to the petitioner paying an additional 10% of the disputed tax amount to the respondents, as agreed. Upon such payment, the second respondent/Appellate Authority was directed to take the appeal on record and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law, after affording sufficient opportunity to the petitioner, expeditiously. The ratio decidendi is that genuine reasons like illness can be a ground for condoning delays in filing appeals, provided the appellant is willing to comply with additional financial conditions imposed by the Court.

Key Issues

1. Whether the delay of 140 days beyond the condonable period in filing the appeal against the assessment order dated 28.02.2023 should be condoned, considering the petitioner's stated illness as the reason for the delay? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner argued that the delay was solely attributable to their ill-health, which prevented timely filing. They had already complied with the statutory pre-deposit requirement and were willing to pay an additional 10% of the disputed tax amount. Therefore, they requested the Court to condone the delay and allow the appeal to be heard on merits. Respondents' Argument: The respondents, through their counsel, submitted that the delay may be condoned subject to terms and requested the Court to pass appropriate orders.