M/S. R R Agency vs. The State Tax Officer 2

Facts

The petitioner, M/s.R.R.Agency, a trader in electrical goods, filed a writ petition challenging an ex-parte demand order dated January 30, 2024, passed by the State Tax Officer (1st Respondent) under Section 74 of the TNGST Act, 2017, for the assessment year 2019-20. The petitioner also challenged the subsequent order dated March 10, 2025, by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner ST (2nd Respondent), which rejected the petitioner's appeal. The petitioner stated that due to a lack of GST knowledge and reliance on a part-time accountant, they were unaware of the assessment proceedings and thus could not attend the personal hearing. The appeal was filed with a delay of 69 days, attributed to the ill-health of the proprietor, and was rejected by the appellate authority solely on this ground.

Held

The Court held that the petitioner had demonstrated a reasonable cause for the delay of 69 days in filing the appeal before the second respondent, primarily due to the ill-health of the proprietor. The Court found this cause to be sufficient and reasonable. Consequently, the Court condoned the delay. The order of the appellate authority/second respondent, which rejected the appeal on grounds of delay, was set aside. The Court directed the second respondent to take up the appeal on merits and in accordance with the law, after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. The Court did not decide on the merits of the original demand order, as the appeal was remitted back for fresh consideration.

Key Issues

1. Whether the delay of 69 days in filing the appeal before the second respondent, caused by the ill-health of the petitioner's proprietor, constitutes a sufficient and reasonable cause for condonation under Section 75(4) of the TNGST Act, 2017? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner argued that the delay was solely due to the ill-health of the proprietor, which prevented them from filing the appeal within the stipulated time. They contended that this constituted a reasonable cause for the delay and that the appellate authority erred in rejecting the appeal on this ground alone, without considering the merits. 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 reasonable cause is established.