Tvl. Maha Super Market vs. The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (St)
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Tvl. Maha Super Market, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 10.03.2025 passed by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (ST), the first respondent. This order rejected the petitioner's appeal against an assessment order passed by the State Tax Officer, the second respondent, for the Assessment Year 2018-2019. The appeal was rejected solely on the grounds of delay. The petitioner contended that the delay of 20 days in filing the appeal was due to the petitioner's illness, which caused unawareness of the initial assessment order. The respondents, through 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 20 days in filing the appeal, attributing it to ill-health. The Court found the petitioner's explanation for the delay to be satisfactory. Consequently, the Court decided to condone the delay. The operative direction was to set aside the order of the first respondent (Appellate Deputy Commissioner) which had rejected the appeal on grounds of limitation. The Court directed the first respondent to take up the petitioner's appeal on merits and dispose of it in accordance with law, after providing the petitioner with an opportunity of hearing. No order as to costs was made.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioner has demonstrated sufficient and reasonable cause for the delay of 20 days in filing the appeal before the first respondent, thereby warranting condonation of delay under the relevant provisions of the GST Act or Rules? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner argued that the delay was solely attributable to their ill-health, which prevented them from being aware of the assessment order passed by the second respondent. This illness necessitated the late filing of the appeal, and therefore, the delay should be condoned. Respondents' Argument: The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents fairly submitted that if the Court finds sufficient and reasonable cause for the delay, appropriate orders may be passed, indicating a concession on the part of the revenue.
Sections Cited
None explicitly mentioned as being discussed or relied upon, other than general reference to appeal provisions and principles of natural justice.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Before: and
This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order of the first respondent, dated 10.03.2025, rejecting the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of demand on the ground of delay.
The petitioner is running a Super Market and due to illness, the petitioner was unaware of the assessment order passed by the second respondent for the Assessment Year 2018-2019. Upon learning about the said order from the second respondent, the petitioner immediately filed an appeal before the first respondent, which was, however, rejected on the ground of limitation.
The petitioner's main grievance is that, due to ill-health, the petitioner was compelled to file the appeal with a delay of 20 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. 2/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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 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 20 days in filing the appeal.
Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The delay of 20 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 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. Index : Yes / No 25.04.2025 NCC : Yes / No (2/2) 3/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis To 1.The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (ST), Goods and Services Tax, Trichy-1. 2.The State Tax Officer, Pattukottai-II Assessment Circle, Thanjavur District. 4/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis VIVEK KUMAR SINGH, J.
smn2
2025 (2/2) 5/5 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.