M/S. Golden Horn Containers Service vs. The State Tax Officer
Facts
The petitioner, M/s. Golden Horn Containers Service, filed a writ petition challenging an assessment order dated 11.02.2025 passed by the 1st Respondent and a consequential rejection order dated 15.12.2025 passed by the 3rd Respondent. The petitioner contended that the assessment order was only uploaded to the GST portal and they were unaware of it, leading to a delay of 67 days in filing their appeal. The appeal was rejected by the 3rd Respondent solely on the grounds of limitation. The petitioner had already paid 10% of the disputed tax as a pre-deposit and was willing to pay an additional 10% to have the delay condoned.
Held
The Court held that the reason provided by the petitioner for the delay in filing the appeal, namely, the assessment order being uploaded to the portal without their knowledge, appeared to be genuine. Consequently, the Court was inclined to condone the delay. The Court set aside the appeal rejection order dated 15.12.2025 passed by the 3rd Respondent and condoned the delay of 67 days in filing the appeal. As a condition for re-presenting the appeal, the petitioner was directed to pay an additional 10% of the disputed tax amount to the respondents, in addition to the 10% already paid. Upon such payment, the 3rd Respondent was directed to accept the re-presented appeal, pass appropriate orders on merits after providing sufficient opportunity to the petitioner, and do so expeditiously.
Key Issues
1. Whether the delay of 67 days in filing the appeal before the 3rd Respondent should be condoned, considering the petitioner's claim of not being aware of the assessment order due to its portal upload. Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the delay was attributable to the assessment order being uploaded to the GST portal without proper service, making them unaware of its existence and thus unable to file the appeal within the stipulated time. They emphasized their willingness to pay an additional 10% of the disputed tax amount as a condition for condoning the delay. Revenue's Arguments: The learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents did not contest the condonation of delay, stating that it could be condoned subject to terms and requested the Court to pass appropriate orders.
Sections Cited
Article 226
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 08.01.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY & W.M.P.(MD)Nos.293 & 295 of 2026 M/s. Golden Horn Containers Service Represented by its Branch Manager, N. Jeyaseelan No.02/91-08, C/o. Krishna and Co. JK Container Yard, Tiruchendur Road Athimarapatti, Thoothukudi - 628 005. ... Petitioner
Vs.
The State Tax Officer Office of the Assistant Commissioner (ST) Tuticorin III Circle, C.T. Buildings, 282, North Beach Road, Tuticorin - 628 001. 2. The Commercial Tax Officer Office of the Assistant Commissioner (ST) Tuticorin III Circle, C.T. Buildings, 282, North Beach Road, Tuticorin - 628 001. 3. The Deputy Commissioner (CT) (Appeal) Madurai Camp at Tirunelveli Ground Floor, C.T. Buildings A.R. Line Road, Trinelveli - 627 002. ... Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the 1/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis records of the impugned order passed by the 1st Respondent vide GSTIN - 33AGVPS7241L1ZN/2020-21, dated 11.02.20
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Madras High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.