Sree Devee Medicals And General Stores vs. The Deputy Commissioner (CT)
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Sree Devee Medicals and General Stores, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 21.03.2025 passed by the Deputy Commissioner (CT), the first respondent and First Appellate Authority. The petitioner's appeal before the first respondent was rejected solely on the ground of delay. The petitioner explained that due to illness, they were unaware of the assessment order passed by the second respondent for the Assessment Year 2018-2019. Upon learning of the order, the petitioner filed an appeal with a delay of 138 days, which was subsequently rejected by the first respondent. The petitioner sought to quash the impugned order for violating principles of natural justice.
Held
The Court held that the petitioner had demonstrated a reasonable cause for the delay of 138 days in filing the appeal before the first respondent. The Court accepted the petitioner's submission that the delay occurred solely due to their ill-health. Consequently, the Court condoned the delay. The impugned order passed by the first respondent, which rejected the appeal on the ground of limitation, was set aside. The Court directed the first respondent to take up the appeal on merits and dispose of it in accordance with law, after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. No order as to costs was made.
Key Issues
1. Whether the delay of 138 days in filing the appeal by the petitioner before the First Appellate Authority is attributable to a sufficient and reasonable cause, considering the petitioner's ill-health. The petitioner argued that the delay was solely due to their ill-health, which prevented them from being aware of the assessment order and filing the appeal within the prescribed time. They contended that this constituted a reasonable cause for the delay. The respondents, through the learned Government Advocate, fairly submitted that if the Court finds sufficient and reasonable cause for the delay, appropriate orders may be passed. No specific arguments were recorded against the petitioner's claim of reasonable cause.
Sections Cited
Not specified
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Before: and
This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 21.03.2025 passed by the first respondent, rejecting the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of demand on the ground of delay.
With the consent of both sides, this Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.
The petitioner is running a medical shop 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. ____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
The petitioner's main grievance is that, due to ill-health, the petitioner was compelled to file the appeal with a delay of 138 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.
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 138 days in filing the appeal.
Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The delay of 138 days in filing the appeal before the first respondent is condoned and the order ____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis of the appellate authority/first respondent is hereby set aside. There shall be a direction to the first respondent to take up the appeal 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. NCC : Yes / No
2025 Index : Yes / No PKN ____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis To:-
The Deputy Commissioner (CT), (First Appellate Authority) Goods and Services Tax, Tirunelveli.
The Deputy State Tax Officer-2, Sengottai Assessment Circle Tenkasi District. ____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis VIVEK KUMAR SINGH
, J.
PKN
2025 ____________ 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.