M/S. Trichy Construction Company vs. The State Tax Officer Inspection Ii
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Trichy Construction Company, is challenging an ex-parte demand order dated March 25, 2024, passed by the State Tax Officer (1st Respondent) for the assessment year 2019-20, and a consequential rejection order dated March 10, 2025, passed by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner ST (2nd Respondent). The petitioner, a civil contractor, claims to have relied on a part-time accountant due to lack of GST knowledge and portal access. This accountant allegedly failed to inform the petitioner about assessment proceedings, resulting in the petitioner's inability to attend a personal hearing. The petitioner became aware of the proceedings only when recovery actions were initiated. An appeal was filed before the 2nd Respondent, which was rejected due to a delay of 11 days, attributed to 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 was inclined to condone the delay. The order of the appellate authority (2nd Respondent), which rejected the appeal due to this delay, 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 law, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. No order as to costs was made. The ratio decidendi is that ill-health of a proprietor can constitute a reasonable cause for condoning a short delay in filing an appeal, allowing for a decision on merits.
Key Issues
1. Whether the delay of 11 days in filing the appeal before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner ST (2nd Respondent) is to be condoned, considering the petitioner's submission of the proprietor's ill-health as a reasonable cause? (Question of fact and law, turning on principles of condonation of delay). Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the delay in filing the appeal was solely due to the ill-health of the proprietor, which constituted a reasonable cause. They sought condonation of this delay to have their appeal heard on merits. 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, indicating no strong opposition to condonation if 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 2/5 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 2/5 ____________ 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.