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 2021-22 under Section 74 of the TNGST Act, 2017. The petitioner also challenged the consequential rejection order dated 10.03.2025 by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner ST (2nd Respondent), which dismissed the petitioner's appeal due to a delay of 70 days. The petitioner attributed the delay to the ill-health of its proprietor and lack of GST knowledge, leading to reliance on a part-time accountant who failed to inform them about assessment proceedings. 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 delay in filing the appeal before the second respondent, primarily due to the ill-health of the proprietor. The Court condoned the delay of 70 days. Consequently, the order of the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (2nd Respondent) rejecting the appeal 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 affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. The Court found that the delay was sufficiently explained and that the petitioner should be given a chance to present their case before the appellate authority. The initial assessment order was not directly adjudicated upon, but the direction for a fresh hearing implies a review of the merits.

Key Issues

1. Whether the delay of 70 days in filing the appeal before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner ST was justifiable on account of the proprietor's ill-health, thereby warranting condonation under Section 75(4) of the TNGST Act, 2017? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner contended that the delay in filing the appeal was solely due to the ill-health of the proprietor, which prevented them from attending to the matter promptly. They argued that this constituted a reasonable cause for the delay and that the Appellate Deputy Commissioner ought to have considered this ground for condonation. The petitioner also argued that the initial assessment order was cryptic and non-speaking, and that they were not afforded a proper opportunity of personal hearing as contemplated under Section 75(4) of the TNGST Act, 2017. 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. The respondents did not present any counter-arguments against the petitioner's claim of reasonable cause for delay.