M/S.Annamalaiar Mills Private Limited vs. The Superintendent Of CGST And Central Excise

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Annamalaiar Mills Private Limited, filed a writ petition challenging an assessment order dated 30.06.2023 passed by the Superintendent of CGST and Central Excise (1st Respondent) and a consequential order dated 17.12.2025 passed by the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) (2nd Respondent). The appeal before the 2nd Respondent was rejected due to a delay of 72 days in filing, with 42 days exceeding the condonable period. The petitioner attributed this delay to the failure of their accountant, leading to their unawareness of the assessment order. The petitioner had already paid 10% of the disputed tax as a pre-deposit and was willing to pay an additional 10%. The respondents consented to the delay being condoned subject to terms.

Held

The Court held that the reason provided by the petitioner for the delay in filing the appeal, namely the failure of their accountant and subsequent unawareness of the assessment order, appeared genuine. Consequently, the Court was inclined to condone the delay. The Court set aside the appeal rejection order dated 17.12.2025 passed by the 2nd Respondent and condoned the delay of 42 days, subject to the petitioner paying an additional 10% of the disputed tax amount to the respondents. Upon such payment, the 2nd Respondent-Appellate Authority was directed to take the appeal on record and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law, after providing sufficient opportunity to the petitioner, expeditiously. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.

Key Issues

1. Whether the delay of 42 days beyond the condonable period in filing the appeal against the assessment order dated 30.06.2023 should be condoned, considering the reason provided by the petitioner? The petitioner argued that the delay was due to their accountant's failure, which resulted in their unawareness of the assessment order. They highlighted that they had already paid 10% of the disputed tax as a pre-deposit and were willing to pay an additional 10% to have the delay condoned and the appeal heard on merits. The petitioner relied on the principle of natural justice and the court's power to grant relief in appropriate cases. The respondents, through their counsel, submitted that the delay may be condoned subject to terms and requested the court to pass appropriate orders.