Tvl. Parasakthi Transport vs. The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (St)
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Tvl. Parasakthi Transport, engaged in the transport business, challenges an order dated 10.03.2025 passed by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (ST), Goods and Services Tax, Trichy-1. The petitioner failed to attend a personal hearing, resulting in an ex-parte assessment order dated 12.06.2024. The petitioner only became aware of this order on 12.10.2024 and subsequently filed an appeal before the first respondent. This appeal was rejected due to being filed with a delay of 7 days. The petitioner attributes this delay to a lack of GST knowledge, portal access, and the auditor's failure to inform them about the assessment proceedings.
Held
The Court held that the petitioner had demonstrated a reasonable cause for the delay in filing the appeal. The reasoning was based on the petitioner's lack of GST knowledge, limited portal access, and the failure of their auditor to inform them about the assessment proceedings. The Court found these circumstances to constitute sufficient grounds to condone the 7-day delay. Consequently, the Court set aside the order of the appellate authority (the first respondent) which had rejected the appeal on grounds of limitation. The Court directed the first respondent to take up the appeal on merits, without reference to the period of limitation, after providing the petitioner an opportunity of hearing. The Court expressly left no issues undecided.
Key Issues
1. Whether the delay of 7 days in filing the appeal by the petitioner constitutes a sufficient and reasonable cause, warranting condonation under the relevant provisions of the GST law? The petitioner argued that the delay was occasioned by their lack of GST knowledge, limited portal access, and the failure of their auditor to apprise them of the assessment proceedings. These factors, they contended, prevented them from attending the personal hearing and filing the appeal within the prescribed time. 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. No specific arguments were recorded for the respondents regarding the merits of the delay.
Sections Cited
Not specified
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Before: and
This writ petition has been filed challenging the order of the first respondent dated 10.03.2025, rejecting the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of demand.
The petitioner is engaged in the transport business and due to lack of GST knowledge and portal access, the petitioner had fully relied on an auditor, 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 12.06.2024. The said order came to the knowledge of the petitioner only on 12.10.2024. The petitioner immediately filed an appeal before the first respondent, which was rejected due to limitation.
The petitioner's main grievance is that, due to lack of GST knowledge and portal access, the petitioner had fully relied on an auditor, who also failed to inform the petitioner about the assessment proceedings, the petitioner was compelled to file the appeal with a delay of 7 days. The appeal was rejected on account of the said delay. Aggrieved by this, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. 2/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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 lack of GST knowledge and portal access, the petitioner had fully relied on an auditor, who also failed to inform the petitioner about the assessment proceedings, 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 7 days in filing the appeal.
Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The delay of 7 days in filing the appeal before the first respondent is condoned and the order of the appellate authority/first respondent is hereby set aside. There shall be a direction to the first respondent to take up the appeal without reference 3/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 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. 25.04.2025 Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No smn2 4/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis To 1.The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (ST), Goods and Services Tax, Trichy -1. 2.The Commercial Tax Officer, Commercial Tax Department, Manapparai. 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.