Trichy Construction Company vs. The State Tax Officer Inspection Ii

Facts

The petitioner, Trichy Construction Company, is challenging an order of demand dated 16.03.2024 passed by the State Tax Officer (1st respondent) under Section 74 of the TNGST Act, 2017, and a consequential order dated 10.03.2025 by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (2nd respondent) rejecting the petitioner's appeal. The petitioner, a civil contractor, claims to have relied on a part-time accountant due to lack of GST knowledge and portal access. This led to the petitioner being unaware of assessment proceedings and consequently unable to attend a personal hearing, resulting in an ex-parte assessment order. The petitioner became aware of the proceedings only when recovery actions were initiated. The appeal filed before the 2nd respondent was rejected due to a delay of 20 days, attributed to the ill-health of the proprietor.

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 arguments presented by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the fair submission by the learned Government Advocate for the respondents. The Court found that the delay of 20 days occurred solely due to the ill-health of the proprietor of the petitioner's concern. Consequently, the Court was inclined to condone the delay. The ratio decidendi is that ill-health of a proprietor can be considered a reasonable cause for condoning a delay in filing an appeal, especially when the revenue does not strongly oppose it. The Court allowed the writ petition, condoned the delay of 20 days, set aside the order of the appellate authority (2nd respondent), and directed the 2nd respondent to take up the appeal and dispose of it on merits after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. No order as to costs was made.

Key Issues

1. Whether the delay of 20 days in filing the appeal before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (2nd respondent) is to be condoned on the grounds of reasonable cause, specifically the ill-health of the proprietor of the petitioner's concern, thereby enabling the appeal to be heard on merits? Petitioner's argument: The petitioner contended that the delay in filing the appeal was solely due to the ill-health of the proprietor, which constituted a reasonable cause for the delay. They sought condonation of this delay to have their appeal heard on merits. Revenue's argument: The 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 justified.