M/S.Shri Attik Chemicals vs. The Deputy Commissioner (CT) (St) (GST) (Appeals)

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Shri Attik Chemicals, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 04.02.2026 passed by the first respondent, the Deputy Commissioner (CT) (ST) (GST) (Appeals). The petitioner's appeal against an assessment order dated 13.02.2025 was rejected by the first respondent due to a delay of 214 days beyond the condonable period. The petitioner attributed this delay to the failure of their accountant, stating they were unaware of the assessment order. The petitioner had already paid 10% of the disputed tax as a pre-deposit and was willing to pay an additional 10%. The respondents' counsel indicated no objection to condoning the delay subject to terms. The High Court considered the matter at the admission stage.

Held

The Court held that the reason assigned by the petitioner for the delay in filing the appeal, namely the failure of their accountant and subsequent unawareness of the assessment order, appeared to be genuine. Consequently, the Court was inclined to condone the delay. The Court set aside the appeal rejection order dated 04.02.2026 passed by the first respondent and condoned the delay of 214 days, subject to the condition that the petitioner pays an additional 10% of the disputed tax amount to the respondents. Upon such payment, the first respondent-Appellate Authority was directed to accept the appeal, hear it on merits, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law after providing sufficient opportunity to the petitioner. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.

Key Issues

1. Whether the delay of 214 days in filing the appeal against the assessment order dated 13.02.2025 should be condoned under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, considering the petitioner's submission of ignorance due to accountant's failure and willingness to pay additional pre-deposit. Petitioner's argument: The petitioner argued that the delay was genuine and caused by their accountant's oversight, leading to their unawareness of the assessment order. They highlighted that they had already made a statutory pre-deposit of 10% and were prepared to pay an additional 10% of the disputed tax amount, seeking condonation of the delay. Revenue's argument: The learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents stated that the delay may be condoned subject to terms and requested the Court to pass appropriate orders.