M/S. Dragon Tube Works vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer-Ii
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, M/s. Dragon Tube Works, a manufacturer and dealer of fireworks, filed a writ petition challenging an order of demand dated March 21, 2023, passed by the Deputy State Tax Officer-II (1st respondent) for the assessment year 2021-2022, under Section 73 of the GST Act, 2017. The petitioner also challenged the consequential order dated June 30, 2024, passed by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (ST) (GST) (2nd respondent), which rejected the petitioner's appeal on the ground of delay. The petitioner contended that due to ill-health, they were unaware of the assessment order and filed the appeal with a delay of 5 days, which was rejected by the appellate authority.
Held
The Court held that the petitioner had demonstrated reasonable cause for the 5-day delay in filing the appeal before the second respondent, attributing the delay to their ill-health. Consequently, the Court condoned the delay. The order of the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (ST) (GST), which rejected the appeal on grounds of limitation, was set aside. The Court directed the second respondent to re-admit the appeal and dispose of it on its merits and in accordance with the law, after providing the petitioner with an opportunity of personal hearing. The principle that can be cited is that ill-health can be considered a reasonable cause for condoning a short delay in filing an appeal, provided it is substantiated.
Key Issues
1. Whether the delay of 5 days in filing the appeal before the second respondent, occasioned by the petitioner's ill-health, constitutes a reasonable cause for condonation? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the delay was solely due to their ill-health, which prevented them from being aware of the assessment order and filing the appeal within the stipulated time. They sought condonation of the 5-day delay. Respondents' contention: The learned Government Advocate for the respondents fairly submitted that if the Court finds sufficient and reasonable cause for the delay, appropriate orders may be passed, indicating no strong opposition to the condonation if reasonable cause is established.
Sections Cited
Section 73, Section 75(4)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Before: and
This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order of demand made by the first respondent dated 21.03.2023, and the consequential order of the second respondent, dated 30.06.2024, rejecting the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of demand on the ground of delay.
The petitioner is the manufacturer and dealer of fireworks and due to ill-health, he was unaware of the assessment order passed by the first respondent for the Assessment Year 2021-2022. Upon learning about the said order from the first respondent, the petitioner immediately filed an appeal before the second respondent, which was, however, rejected on the ground of limitation. 2/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
The petitioner's main grievance is that due to his ill-health, he has filed the appeal with a delay of 5 days. The appeal was rejected on account of the said delay. Aggrieved by this, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.
Per contra, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents would fairly submit that, if the Court finds sufficient and reasonable cause for the delay, appropriate orders may be passed.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record.
Considering the arguments made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate for the respondents, as well as the fact that the delay has occurred only due to ill-health of the petitioner, this Court is of the view that the petitioner has demonstrated reasonable cause for the delay. Therefore, the Court is inclined to condone the delay of 5 days in filing the appeal. 3/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Accordingly, the writ petition is partly allowed. The delay of 5 days in filing the appeal before the second respondent is condoned and the order of the appellate authority/second respondent is hereby set aside. There shall be a direction to the second respondent to take up the appeal and dispose of the same on merits and in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. 23.04.2025 Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No sm 4/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis To 1.The Deputy State Tax Officer -II, O/o. the Assistant Commissioner (ST), Virudhunagar 3 Assessment Circle, Commercial Tax Building, Virudhunagar.
The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (ST) (GST), Commercial Taxes Buildings, Tirunelveli. 5/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis VIVEK KUMAR SINGH, J.
sm
2025 6/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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.