Tvl. Kannan. G vs. The State Tax Officer Inspection-V
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Tvl.G.Kannan, a contractor, filed a writ petition challenging an ex-parte demand order dated January 10, 2024, passed by the first respondent, the State Tax Officer – Inspection - V, under Section 74 of the TNGST Act, 2017, for the period 2021-22. The petitioner also challenged the consequential rejection order dated March 10, 2025, passed by the second respondent, the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (ST), which rejected the petitioner's appeal due to a 10-day delay. The petitioner stated that due to lack of GST knowledge and reliance on a part-time accountant, they were unaware of the assessment proceedings and could not attend the personal hearing. The appeal was delayed due to the petitioner's ill-health.
Held
The Court held that the petitioner had demonstrated a reasonable cause for the delay of 10 days in filing the appeal before the second respondent, attributing it to the petitioner's ill-health. Consequently, the Court condoned the delay. The order of the appellate authority (second respondent) rejecting the appeal was set aside. The Court directed the second respondent to take up the appeal without reference to the period of limitation and dispose of it on merits and in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. The Court did not explicitly address the petitioner's arguments regarding the initial demand order being cryptic or non-speaking, as the primary focus was on condoning the delay to allow the appeal to be heard on merits.
Key Issues
1. Whether the delay of 10 days in filing the appeal before the second respondent, caused by the petitioner's ill-health, constitutes a sufficient and reasonable cause for condonation, thereby requiring the second respondent to consider the appeal on its merits? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the delay in filing the appeal was solely due to their ill-health, which prevented them from filing it within the stipulated time. They sought condonation of this delay and a direction for the second respondent to hear the appeal on merits. The petitioner also contended that the initial demand order was cryptic and non-speaking, and they were not afforded a proper opportunity of personal hearing as contemplated under Section 75(4) of the TNGST Act, 2017. 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.
Sections Cited
Section 74, 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 passed by the first respondent dated 10.01.2024 and the order of the second respondent dated 10.03.2025, rejecting the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of demand.
The petitioner is engaged in the business of executing civil works contract and due to lack of GST knowledge and portal access, the petitioner had fully relied on a part-time accountant, who also failed to inform the petitioner about the assessment proceedings. Therefore, the petitioner was unable to attend the personal hearing, leading to the issuance of an ex-parte assessment order dated 10.01.2024. When the 2/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis recovery wing of the first respondent approached the petitioner, the petitioner became aware of the assessment proceedings. The petitioner immediately filed an appeal before the second respondent, which was rejected due to limitation.
The petitioner's main grievance is that, due to ill-health of the petitioner, the petitioner was compelled to file the appeal with a delay of 10 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 3/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 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 10 days in filing the appeal.
Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The delay of 10 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 without reference to the period of limitation 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. 29.04.2025 Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No smn2 4/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis To 1.The State Tax Officer – Inspection - V, Office of the Deputy Commissioner (ST), Inspection, No.C/107, B2, First Floor, 7th Cross Street, Northeast Extn., Thillai Nagar, Trichy - 620 018. 2.The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (ST), Goods and Services Tax, Trichy and Vellore Division, 2nd Main Road, Ponnagar, Trichy – 1. 5/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis VIVEK KUMAR SINGH, J.
smn2
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.