Thakshi Infra vs. The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (S.T)

Facts

The petitioner, Thakshi Infra, filed a writ petition challenging an assessment order dated June 22, 2023, passed by the State Tax Officer (second respondent) and a consequential order dated March 10, 2025, passed by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (ST) (first respondent). The petitioner's appeal before the first respondent was rejected due to a delay of 193 days. The petitioner contended that the delay occurred because the assessment order was not uploaded in a timely manner. The respondents, through the Government Advocate, submitted that if the Court found sufficient cause for the delay, appropriate orders could be passed.

Held

The Court held that the petitioner had shown a reasonable cause for the delay of 193 days in filing the appeal. The Court reasoned that the delay occurred solely because the assessment order was not uploaded in a timely manner, which it considered a sufficient justification. Consequently, the Court condoned the delay. The order of the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (ST), which rejected the appeal on grounds of limitation, was set aside. The Court directed the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (ST) to take up the appeal on merits and in accordance with law, without reference to the period of limitation, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The disposal was to be completed within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. No order as to costs was made.

Key Issues

1. Whether the delay of 193 days in filing the appeal before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (ST) is attributable to a reasonable cause, thereby warranting condonation? This issue turns on the interpretation of principles governing condonation of delay in statutory appeals. The petitioner argued that the delay was solely due to the assessment order not being uploaded in a timely manner, constituting a reasonable cause. The respondents, through the Government Advocate, fairly submitted that appropriate orders could be passed if the Court found sufficient and reasonable cause for the delay, indicating no specific argument against condonation was presented.