Tvl. Senthil Traders vs. The Commissioner Of CGST And Central Excise

Facts

The petitioner, Tvl. Senthil Traders, filed a writ petition challenging an Order-In-Original dated 18.07.2025 passed by the Assistant Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise, Virudhunagar Division. A show cause notice was issued on 04.04.2025, to which the petitioner replied on 30.06.2025. Subsequently, the petitioner's business premises were temporarily closed for renovation, and operations shifted to an additional place of business. The impugned assessment order was served at the original, now closed, business address. Consequently, the petitioner was unaware of the order and could not file an appeal within the prescribed time limit. The petitioner sought liberty to file an appeal and offered to pay 10% of the disputed tax amount in addition to the statutory deposit.

Held

The Court held that the writ petition would be dismissed, but liberty would be granted to the petitioner to file an appeal. The reasoning was based on the petitioner's submission that they were unaware of the assessment order due to their business premises being temporarily closed for renovation, leading to the delay in filing the appeal. The petitioner's willingness to pay 10% of the disputed tax amount in addition to the statutory pre-deposit was a significant factor. The Court's decision was to allow the petitioner to approach the Appellate Authority. The operative direction was that the petitioner could file an appeal within four weeks from the date of receiving the order, subject to paying 10% of the disputed tax amount over and above the statutory pre-deposit. The Appellate Authority was directed to consider the appeal on its merits, without pressing for limitation, after ensuring the payment of the additional deposit and providing sufficient opportunity to the petitioner.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Court should grant liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal against the impugned assessment order dated 18.07.2025, despite the delay, considering the circumstances explained by the petitioner? The petitioner argued that the delay in filing the appeal was due to the assessment order being served at their temporarily closed original place of business, making them unaware of the order. They expressed willingness to file an appeal and offered to pay 10% of the disputed tax amount over and above the statutory deposit to condone the delay. The respondents, represented by their counsel, submitted that the delay may be condoned subject to terms and requested the Court to pass appropriate orders.