Alexander vs. The Deputy Commissioner (GST Appeals)

Facts

The petitioner, Alexander, filed a writ petition before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court challenging an order dated 05.11.2025 passed by the first respondent, the Deputy Commissioner (GST Appeals). The petitioner had preferred an appeal before the appellate authority, which is the first respondent. However, the appeal was not filed within the condonable period of limitation, with a further delay of 39 days. The petitioner stated that the assessed tax and interest had been paid, and only the penalty was in dispute. The writ petition sought a Mandamus to direct the first respondent to consider and dispose of the petitioner's appeal.

Held

The Court held that an indulgent view could be taken in the present case. The Court noted that the assessed tax and interest had been paid, and the dispute pertained only to the penalty. Following the consistent view of the High Court that marginal delays in filing appeals can be condoned by directing the appellate authority to entertain the appeal, the Court found it appropriate to do so. The impugned order dated 05.11.2025 was rejected. The first respondent was directed to number the petitioner's appeal and dispose of it on its merits and in accordance with law. The ratio decidendi is that marginal delays in filing appeals under GST, where tax and interest are paid and only penalty is disputed, warrant an indulgent approach by the appellate authority, consistent with High Court precedents.

Key Issues

1. Whether the appellate authority should be directed to entertain an appeal filed beyond the condonable period of limitation, particularly when the delay is marginal and the tax and interest have been paid, with only the penalty in dispute? The petitioner argued that given the marginal delay of 39 days and the fact that the assessed tax and interest were paid, an indulgent view should be taken by the appellate authority. The petitioner relied on the consistent view of the High Court that where the delay is marginal, the appellate authority may be directed to entertain the appeal. The respondents did not record any specific arguments against this contention.