M/S.Annai Velanganni Industries vs. The State Tax Officer
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, M/s.Annai Velanganni Industries, challenged an ex-parte assessment order dated May 20, 2024, passed by the State Tax Officer (first respondent) for the assessment year 2018-19, and a subsequent order dated April 8, 2025, by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (second respondent) rejecting the petitioner's appeal. The petitioner attributed the failure to attend assessment proceedings and personal hearings to a lack of GST knowledge and portal access, relying on a part-time accountant who did not inform them of the proceedings. The appeal was filed with a delay of 192 days, attributed to the ill-health of the proprietor, and was rejected by the appellate authority on grounds of limitation.
Held
The Court held that the petitioner had demonstrated a reasonable cause for the delay in filing the appeal, attributing it to the ill-health of the proprietor. The Court found the arguments made by the petitioner's counsel and the concession made by the Government Advocate persuasive. Consequently, the Court decided to condone the delay of 192 days in filing the appeal. The order of the appellate authority/second respondent, which rejected the appeal due to limitation, was set aside. The Court directed the second respondent to take up the appeal for disposal on its merits and in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. No order as to costs was made. The issue of the validity of the ex-parte assessment order itself was not decided, as the matter was remanded for fresh consideration of the appeal.
Key Issues
1. Whether the delay of 192 days in filing the appeal before the second respondent, caused by the ill-health of the petitioner's proprietor, constitutes a sufficient and reasonable cause for condonation under Section 75(4) of the TNGST Act, 2017? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the delay was solely due to the ill-health of the proprietor, which prevented them from filing the appeal within the prescribed period. They argued that this constituted a reasonable cause for the delay and that the appeal should be considered on its merits after condoning the delay. Respondents' arguments: 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. They did not contest the petitioner's claim of ill-health as a cause for delay.
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 20.05.2024 and the order of the second respondent dated 08.04.2025, rejecting the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of demand.
The petitioner is a manufacturer of wooden products 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 20.05.2024. When the 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. 2/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
The petitioner's main grievance is that, due to ill-health of the Proprietor of the petitioner's concern, the petitioner was compelled to file
the appeal with a delay of 192 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 Proprietor of the petitioner's concern, 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 192 days in filing the appeal. 3/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The delay of 192 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. 28.04.2025 Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No smn2 4/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis To 1.The State Tax Officer, Pudukkottai – 3 Assessment Circle, C.T. Buildings, Pudukottai. 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.