M/S. Trichy Construction Company vs. The State Tax Officer
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, M/s. Trichy Construction Company, challenged an ex-parte demand order dated 16.02.2024 passed by the State Tax Officer (1st respondent) for the assessment year 2018-19. The petitioner claimed they were unaware of the assessment proceedings due to reliance on a part-time accountant and the proprietor's ill-health. Consequently, they failed to attend the personal hearing. An appeal filed before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner ST (2nd respondent) was rejected due to a 20-day delay. The petitioner sought to quash both orders and requested a fresh order after a personal hearing, citing lack of jurisdiction and non-speaking nature of the orders.
Held
The Court held that the petitioner had demonstrated a reasonable cause for the 20-day delay in filing the appeal before the second respondent. The Court accepted the petitioner's submission that the delay was attributable to the ill-health of the proprietor and their lack of familiarity with GST procedures, which led to their inability to attend the personal hearing and file the appeal promptly. The Court found this to be a sufficient and reasonable cause for condoning the delay. Consequently, the order of the Appellate Deputy Commissioner rejecting the appeal on grounds of limitation was set aside. The Court directed the second respondent to take up the appeal on merits and dispose of it in accordance with law, after providing 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 ST was caused by a sufficient and reasonable cause, warranting condonation under Section 75(4) of the TNGST Act, 2017? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the delay was solely due to the ill-health of the proprietor and their lack of GST knowledge, which prevented them from attending the personal hearing and subsequently filing the appeal within the stipulated time. They relied on the principle that reasonable cause should be considered for condoning delay. Revenue's contention: The Government Advocate for the respondents fairly submitted that if the Court found sufficient and reasonable cause for the delay, appropriate orders could be passed, indicating no strong opposition to condoning the delay if justified.
Sections Cited
Section 75(4), Section 74
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 16.02.2024 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 16.02.2024. 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 20 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 20 days in filing the appeal.
Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The delay of 20 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 1/3 PKN ____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis To:-
The State Tax Officer Woraiyur Assessment Circle Commercial Tax Buildings Trichy.
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 1/3 ____________ 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.