J Velmurugan vs. The Deputy Commissioner

Facts

The petitioner, J. Velmurugan, proprietor of Sri Jeyaguru Mobiles, challenged two orders. The second respondent, the Assistant Commissioner, issued a demand order dated 30.11.2023, alleging mismatches in GSTR 2A, GSTR 3B, and GSTR 1 for financial year 2019-2020, specifically output mismatch, ITC mismatch, and inward E-way bill verification mismatch. The petitioner claims he submitted an explanation on 18.05.2023 denying these mismatches and that the order was passed without an opportunity for enquiry. Subsequently, the petitioner filed an appeal before the first respondent, the Deputy Commissioner, on 29.04.2024, with a delay of 27 days. The first respondent summarily rejected this appeal on 08.11.2024 without a hearing. The petitioner filed this writ petition seeking to quash both orders.

Held

The Court held that the petitioner had demonstrated reasonable cause for the delay of 27 days in filing the appeal before the first respondent. The Court found merit in the petitioner's argument that the first respondent had summarily rejected the appeal without affording an opportunity of personal hearing. Consequently, the Court decided to condone the delay. The reasoning was based on the principle that a party should not be denied the opportunity to have their appeal heard on merits, especially when the appellate authority has not provided a proper hearing. The ratio decidendi is that an appellate authority must provide an opportunity of hearing before summarily rejecting an appeal, and if this is not done, and a reasonable cause for delay is shown, the delay should be condoned. The Court set aside the order of the first respondent and directed the first respondent to take up the appeal and dispose of it on merits after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The issue of the initial demand order passed by the second respondent was not expressly decided on its merits, as the matter was remanded for fresh consideration of the appeal.

Key Issues

1. Whether the delay of 27 days in filing the appeal before the first respondent (Deputy Commissioner) is to be condoned, considering the circumstances presented by the petitioner and the respondents' submission that appropriate orders may be passed if sufficient cause is found? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the order of demand passed by the second respondent was without providing an opportunity for enquiry. The appeal filed before the first respondent was summarily rejected without a hearing. The petitioner sought to quash both orders. Respondents' arguments: The learned Government Advocate for the respondents fairly submitted that if the Court finds sufficient and reasonable cause for the delay, appropriate orders may be passed.