Sakthi Murugan Mala vs. The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (St)

Facts

The petitioner, Smt. Sakthi Murugan Mala, proprietor of M/s. S M Traders, filed two writ petitions challenging an order of demand dated July 19, 2023, passed by the State Tax Officer (second respondent) and an appellate order dated March 10, 2025, passed by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (ST) (first respondent). The petitioner is a supplier of rice bran. The petitioner claims to have been unaware of the assessment order for the Assessment Year 2018-2019. Upon learning of this order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the first respondent, which was rejected solely on the grounds of delay. The petitioner contends that the appeal was filed with a delay of 148 days and this delay was due to their unawareness of the initial assessment order.

Held

The Court held that the petitioner had demonstrated a reasonable cause for the delay of 148 days in filing the appeal. The Court found that the delay occurred solely due to the petitioner's unawareness of the initial assessment order passed by the second respondent. Consequently, the Court was inclined to condone this delay. The appellate order passed by the first respondent, which rejected the appeal on grounds of limitation, was set aside. The Court directed the first respondent to take up the petitioner's appeal and dispose of it on its merits and in accordance with the law. The petitioner was to be afforded an opportunity of hearing before the first respondent. The appeal was to be decided within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. No order as to costs was made.

Key Issues

1. Whether the delay of 148 days in filing the appeal before the first respondent, occasioned by the petitioner's alleged unawareness of the assessment order, constitutes a sufficient and reasonable cause for condonation under the relevant provisions of the GST law? The petitioner argued that the delay was solely attributable to their lack of knowledge regarding the assessment order passed by the second respondent. They contended that this unawareness constituted a reasonable cause for the delayed filing of the appeal. The petitioner relied on the principle that procedural delays, when justified by genuine reasons, should not prejudice a party's right to seek redressal. The respondents, through the learned Government Advocate, submitted that if the Court finds sufficient and reasonable cause for the delay, appropriate orders may be passed. This indicates the respondents did not contest the petitioner's claim for condonation of delay if a reasonable cause was established.