M/S. Shalom Greentech vs. The Deputy Commissioner (CT)

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Shalom Greentech, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 19.03.2025 passed by the Deputy Commissioner (CT), GST-Appeals. The petitioner's appeal before the respondent was rejected due to a delay of 43 days. The delay was attributed to the petitioner's ill health. The petitioner sought to quash the impugned order and direct the respondent to hear the appeal on merits after granting a personal hearing. The respondent, represented by the Government Advocate, submitted that if the Court found sufficient cause for the delay, appropriate orders could be passed.

Held

The Court held that the petitioner had demonstrated a reasonable cause for the delay of 43 days in filing the appeal, attributing it solely to their ill health. Consequently, the Court was inclined to condone the delay. The impugned order of the appellate authority/respondent, which rejected the appeal on the ground of limitation, was set aside. The Court directed the respondent to take up the appeal without reference to the period of limitation and dispose of it on merits and in accordance with law. This disposal was to be done after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. The Court found that the petitioner had made out a case for condonation of delay based on the presented circumstances.

Key Issues

1. Whether the delay of 43 days in filing the appeal before the respondent is attributable to a sufficient and reasonable cause, thereby warranting condonation under the provisions of the TN GST Act, 2017? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner contended that the delay was solely due to their ill health, which constituted a reasonable cause for not filing the appeal within the prescribed time. They sought condonation of the delay and a direction for the appeal to be heard on merits. Respondent's Argument: The respondent, through the Government Advocate, conceded that if the Court found sufficient and reasonable cause for the delay, appropriate orders could be passed, indicating no strong opposition to the condonation of delay on such grounds.