Kannathal Steel Fabrication Industries vs. The Appellate Deputy Commissioner St

Facts

The petitioner, Kannathal Steel Fabrication Industries, challenged an assessment order dated 08.02.2024 passed by the State Tax Officer (second respondent) and a subsequent order dated 10.03.2025 by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (ST) (first respondent) which rejected the petitioner's appeal. The petitioner's appeal was filed with a delay of 86 days because the assessment order was allegedly not uploaded in a timely manner. The Appellate Deputy Commissioner rejected the appeal solely on the grounds of limitation. The petitioner sought to quash these orders and requested an opportunity for a personal hearing.

Held

The Court held that the petitioner had shown a reasonable cause for the delay of 86 days in filing the appeal before the first respondent. The Court found that the delay occurred solely due to the assessment order not being uploaded in a timely manner, which prevented the petitioner from filing their appeal within the stipulated period. Consequently, the Court decided to condone the delay. The order of the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (first respondent) rejecting the appeal on the grounds of limitation was set aside. The Court directed the first respondent to take up the appeal on merits and in accordance with law, without reference to the period of limitation, and to afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The appeal is to be disposed of within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

Key Issues

1. Whether the delay of 86 days in filing the appeal before the first respondent, caused by the alleged non-timely uploading of the assessment order, is a sufficient and reasonable cause to be condoned, thereby allowing the appeal to be heard on merits? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner contended that the delay was solely attributable to the assessment order not being uploaded in a timely manner, which prevented them from filing the appeal within the prescribed period. They argued for condonation of the delay based on this reasonable cause. Revenue's Argument: 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, indicating no strong opposition to condoning the delay if a valid reason is established.