M/S.Trichy Construction Company vs. The State Tax Officer (Inspection) - Ii
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Trichy Construction Company, challenged an ex-parte demand order dated 25.03.2024 passed by the State Tax Officer (1st Respondent) for the assessment year 2022-23 under Section 74 of the TNGST Act, 2017. The petitioner claimed they were unaware of the assessment proceedings due to reliance on a part-time accountant and the proprietor's ill-health. Upon learning of recovery proceedings, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner ST (2nd Respondent), which was rejected due to a delay of 11 days. The petitioner sought to quash both orders and requested a fresh order after a personal hearing.
Held
The Court held that the petitioner had demonstrated a reasonable cause for the delay of 11 days in filing the appeal before the second respondent, attributing it to the ill-health of the proprietor. Consequently, the Court was inclined to condone this delay. The order of the Appellate Deputy Commissioner ST, which rejected the appeal on grounds of limitation, was set aside. The Court directed the second respondent to take up the appeal and dispose of it on its merits and in accordance with the law, after providing the petitioner with an opportunity of a personal hearing. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided, but the primary focus was on condoning the delay to allow the appeal to be heard on merits.
Key Issues
1. Whether the delay of 11 days in filing the appeal before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner ST was caused by a sufficient and reasonable cause, thereby warranting condonation under Section 75(4) of the TNGST Act, 2017? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the delay was attributable to the ill-health of the proprietor of the petitioner's concern, which constituted a reasonable cause for the delay in filing the appeal. They also contended that the initial demand order was cryptic and non-speaking, and they were not afforded a proper opportunity of personal hearing. Revenue's Contention: 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 reasonable cause is established.
Sections Cited
Section 74, Section 75(4)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Before: and
This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order of demand passed by the first respondent dated 25.03.2024 and the order of the second respondent dated 10.03.2025, rejecting the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of demand.
With the consent of both sides, this Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.
The petitioner claims to be a Civil Contractor executing work contract for PWD Department and due to lack of GST knowledge and portal ____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis access, the petitioner had fully relied on a part-time accountant, who also failed to inform the petitioner about the assessment proceedings. Therefore, the petitioner was unable to attend the personal hearing, leading to the issuance of an ex-parte assessment order dated 25.03.2024. When the second respondent initiated recovery proceedings, the petitioner became aware of the assessment proceedings. The petitioner immediately filed an appeal before the second respondent, which was rejected due to limitation.
The petitioner's main grievance is that, due to ill-health of the Proprietor of the petitioner's concern, the petitioner was compelled to file the appeal with a delay of 11 days. The appeal was rejected on account of the said delay. Aggrieved by this, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.
Mr.J.K.Jayaselan, 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. ____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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 Proprietor of the petitioner's concern, 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 11 days in filing the appeal.
Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The delay of 11 days in filing the appeal before the second respondent is condoned and the order of the appellate authority/second respondent is hereby set aside. There shall be a direction to the second 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 5/5 PKN ____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis To:-
The State Tax Officer Inspection II, Office of the Joint Commissioner ST Intelligence, Trichy, I floor, No.107 B2, Thilai Nagar, North East Extn, Trichy 18. 2. The Appellate Deputy Commissioner ST, Goods and Services Tax, Trichy Vellore Division, 2nd Main Road, Ponnagar, Trichy 1. ____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis VIVEK KUMAR SINGH
, J.
PKN
2025 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.