M/S. Trichy Construction Company vs. The State Tax Officer (Inspection) - Ii

Facts

The petitioner, Trichy Construction Company, is challenging an ex-parte demand order dated 25.03.2024 passed by the State Tax Officer (1st Respondent) for the assessment year 2020-21, and a consequential rejection order dated 10.03.2025 by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (2nd Respondent) which dismissed the petitioner's appeal due to a delay of 11 days. The petitioner attributes the ex-parte order to a lack of GST knowledge and portal access, relying on a part-time accountant who failed to inform them of assessment proceedings. This prevented the petitioner from attending a personal hearing. Upon becoming aware of recovery proceedings, the petitioner filed an appeal, which was rejected due to the delay. The petitioner's main grievance is that the delay was caused by the ill-health of the proprietor.

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 condoned the delay. The order of the Appellate Deputy Commissioner rejecting the appeal on grounds of limitation was set aside. The Court further directed the second respondent to take up the appeal on merits and dispose of it in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The Court did not explicitly rule on the merits of the original demand order but focused on the procedural aspect of condoning the delay to allow the appeal to be heard. The issue of the original demand order being cryptic and non-speaking was implicitly addressed by remanding the matter for a fresh hearing.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Appellate Deputy Commissioner erred in rejecting the petitioner's appeal on grounds of limitation, considering the delay was caused by the proprietor's ill-health? 2. Whether the ex-parte demand order passed by the State Tax Officer is liable to be quashed for being cryptic, non-speaking, and passed without affording a proper opportunity of personal hearing as contemplated under Section 75(4) of the TNGST Act, 2017? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the delay of 11 days in filing the appeal was attributable to the ill-health of the proprietor, constituting a reasonable cause. They also argued that the original demand order was passed ex-parte without a proper hearing and that both the demand order and the rejection order were illegal and arbitrary. They sought a direction to the respondents to pass a fresh order after affording an opportunity of personal hearing. Revenue's arguments: 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.