M/S. Trichy Construction Company vs. The State Tax Officer

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Trichy Construction Company, filed a writ petition challenging an ex-parte demand order dated 16.02.2024 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 ST (2nd respondent). The petitioner, a civil contractor, failed to attend the personal hearing due to lack of GST knowledge, reliance on a part-time accountant who did not inform them of the proceedings, and later, ill-health of the proprietor. This led to an ex-parte assessment order. Upon becoming aware of recovery proceedings, the petitioner filed an appeal before the 2nd respondent, which was rejected due to a delay of 70 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 70-day delay in filing the appeal before the second respondent, primarily due to the ill-health of the proprietor. The Court found this to be a sufficient ground for condoning the delay. Consequently, the order of the appellate authority (second respondent) rejecting the appeal on grounds of limitation was set aside. The Court directed the second respondent to accept the appeal, take it up for disposal on its merits and in accordance with law, and crucially, to afford an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. The Court did not decide on the merits of the original demand order, as the primary issue addressed was the condonation of delay and the right to a hearing.

Key Issues

1. Whether the delay of 70 days in filing the appeal before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner ST, Goods and Services Tax, is to be condoned on the grounds of reasonable cause, specifically the ill-health of the proprietor of the petitioner's concern, as contemplated under Section 75(4) of the TNGST Act, 2017? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the delay in filing the appeal was solely attributable to the ill-health of the proprietor, which constituted a sufficient and reasonable cause. They contended that the ex-parte assessment order was cryptic and non-speaking, and that they were not afforded a proper opportunity of personal hearing as mandated by Section 75(4) of the TNGST Act, 2017. They relied on the principle that procedural delays due to genuine hardship should be condoned. Respondents' Arguments: The learned Government Advocate for the respondents fairly submitted that if the Court found sufficient and reasonable cause for the delay, appropriate orders could be passed. No specific arguments were recorded against the condonation of delay or the merits of the case.