Tvl. Bharakath Metal Builders vs. The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT)

Facts

The petitioner, Tvl. Bharakath Metal Builders, filed a writ petition challenging the rejection of their appeal by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT) on October 16, 2025. The appeal was filed with a delay of 150 days beyond the condonable period, which led to its rejection by the respondent authority. The petitioner attributed this delay to the failure of their accountant, stating they remained unaware of the assessment order passed on August 25, 2024. The petitioner had previously filed a rectification application on November 23, 2024, which was rejected on February 28, 2025. The petitioner had already paid 10% of the disputed tax as a pre-deposit and was willing to pay an additional 10%. The respondents, represented by the Additional Government Pleader, agreed to condone the delay subject to terms.

Held

The Court held that the reason assigned by the petitioner for the delay in filing the appeal against the assessment order appeared to be genuine. The Court found that the petitioner's explanation of their accountant's failure, resulting in their unawareness of the assessment order, was a valid ground for condoning the delay. Consequently, the Court decided to condone the delay of 150 days in filing the appeal. The Court set aside the appeal rejection order dated October 16, 2025, passed by the first respondent. As a condition for condoning the delay, the Court directed the petitioner to pay an additional 10% of the disputed tax amount to the respondents, as agreed by the petitioner. Upon payment, the petitioner was directed to represent the appeal, and the first respondent-Appellate Authority was instructed to take the appeal on record and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law, after providing sufficient opportunity to the petitioner, expeditiously.

Key Issues

1. Whether the delay of 150 days in filing the appeal against the assessment order dated August 25, 2024, should be condoned, considering the petitioner's explanation of their accountant's failure and their willingness to pay an additional 10% of the disputed tax amount? (Question of fact and law) Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the delay was genuine due to their accountant's failure, leading to their unawareness of the assessment order. They highlighted that they had already paid the statutory pre-deposit of 10% and were prepared to pay an additional 10% of the disputed tax. They relied on the principle of natural justice and the need for a fair hearing on merits. Respondents' arguments: The respondents, through the Additional Government Pleader, submitted that the delay could be condoned subject to terms and requested the Court to pass appropriate orders.