Tvl. Maha Super Market vs. The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (St)

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), Trichy-1 (first respondent). The appeal filed by the petitioner before the first respondent was rejected solely on the ground of delay. The petitioner stated that the delay of 4 days in filing the appeal was due to the petitioner's ill-health, which caused them to be unaware of an assessment order for the Assessment Year 2017-2018 passed by the State Tax Officer, Pattukottai-II Assessment Circle (second respondent). Upon learning of the order, the petitioner promptly filed an appeal, which was then dismissed for being time-barred.

Held

The Court held that the petitioner had demonstrated a reasonable cause for the delay of 4 days in filing the appeal, attributing it to their ill-health. The Court found the petitioner's explanation to be credible and sufficient to warrant condonation of the delay. Consequently, the Court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the order of the first respondent that rejected the appeal on grounds of limitation. The Court directed the first respondent to accept the appeal, condone the 4-day delay, and proceed to dispose of the appeal on its merits after providing the petitioner with an opportunity of being heard. The Court explicitly stated that the appeal should be taken up without reference to the period of limitation. No order as to costs was made.

Key Issues

1. Whether the delay of 4 days in filing the appeal before the first respondent, occasioned by the petitioner's ill-health, constitutes a reasonable cause for condonation under the relevant provisions of the GST Act and Rules, thereby requiring the appellate authority to decide the appeal on merits? The petitioner argued that the delay was minimal (4 days) and was directly attributable to their ill-health, which prevented them from being aware of the assessment order and filing the appeal within the stipulated time. They contended that this constituted a sufficient and reasonable cause for condoning the delay and that the appellate authority had erred in rejecting the appeal solely on technical grounds of limitation, thereby violating principles of natural justice. The respondents, represented by the Government Advocate, fairly submitted that if the Court found sufficient and reasonable cause for the delay, appropriate orders could be passed. They did not present any arguments against condoning the delay on the grounds presented by the petitioner.