M/S.A.Subramanian vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of GST And Central Excise

Facts

The petitioner, M/s.A.Subramanian, filed a writ petition challenging an assessment order dated 31.03.2022 passed by the Assistant Commissioner of GST and Central Excise, Thanjavur Division, and a subsequent order dated 31.03.2025 by the Commercial Tax Officer (Appeals) rejecting their appeal. The petitioner explained that due to severe health issues and prolonged treatment, they were unable to file a reply or participate in the personal hearing before the assessment order was passed, and consequently, could not file an appeal within the prescribed time. The appeal was filed with a delay of 282 days, which was beyond the condonable period, leading to its rejection by the appellate authority on grounds of limitation. The petitioner offered to pay an additional 10% of the disputed tax amount over and above the statutory pre-deposit.

Held

The Court held that the reason assigned by the petitioner for the delay in filing the appeal, namely severe health issues and prolonged treatment, appeared to be genuine. In the interest of justice, the Court decided to condone the delay of 282 days in filing the appeal. The Court set aside the appeal rejection order dated 31.03.2025 passed by the 2nd respondent (Appellate Authority). This condonation was made subject to the petitioner paying an additional 10% of the disputed tax amount to the 2nd respondent, as agreed by the petitioner. Upon such payment, the 2nd respondent was directed to take the appeal on record and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law, after providing a sufficient opportunity for a personal hearing to the petitioner, expeditiously. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.

Key Issues

1. Whether the delay of 282 days in filing the appeal against the assessment order, caused by the petitioner's severe health issues and prolonged treatment, should be condoned by the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, considering the respondents' submission that the delay may be condoned on terms? Petitioner's argument: The petitioner contended that the delay was attributable to genuine health reasons, preventing them from participating in the assessment proceedings and filing the appeal within the stipulated time. They also offered to pay an additional 10% of the disputed tax amount as a condition for condonation. Respondent's argument: The respondent, through their counsel, fairly submitted that the delay may be condoned and requested the Court to pass appropriate orders on terms.