M/S. Alagarsamy Constructions vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Alagarsamy Constructions, filed a writ petition challenging an order passed by the Assistant Commissioner (ST) and a consequential order by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (ST). The petitioner had filed an appeal before the appellate authority with a delay of 209 days. The appellate authority rejected the appeal solely on the grounds of being barred by limitation. The petitioner sought to quash these orders, arguing they were cryptic, non-speaking, illegal, arbitrary, and without jurisdiction, and requested a fresh order after a personal hearing as contemplated under Section 754 of the TNGST Act, 2017. The petitioner had already remitted 10% of the pre-deposit.

Held

The Court held that the impugned order of the appellate authority, which rejected the appeal solely on the ground of limitation, was to be set aside. The Court acknowledged that while the authority might lack the power to condone delays beyond a certain period, the High Court has historically shown indulgence. The Court noted that the delay was not marginal. The Court's decision was conditional upon the petitioner remitting a further 10% of the disputed tax amount to the assessing officer. Upon production of proof of this remittance, the appeal would be numbered and disposed of on its merits by the appellate authority. The order of the assessing officer was not interfered with at this stage and would be subject to the appeal before the appellate authority. The Court found the orders to be defective, leading to the setting aside of the appellate authority's order.

Key Issues

1. Whether the appellate authority erred in rejecting the appeal solely on the ground of limitation, despite the High Court's practice of showing indulgence in such cases? (Question of law and fact, turning on the interpretation of procedural fairness and the High Court's inherent powers). 2. Whether the orders passed by the respondent authorities are cryptic, non-speaking, illegal, arbitrary, and without jurisdiction? (Question of law, concerning the validity of administrative orders). Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the orders were non-speaking and illegal. They argued that the appellate authority should have considered the appeal on merits, especially given the High Court's tendency to condone delays in similar circumstances. The petitioner also highlighted that 10% of the pre-deposit had already been remitted and undertook to remit a further 10% of the disputed tax amount. They relied on a previous High Court order dated 03.09.2025 in W.P(MD)No.23902 of 2025, suggesting a precedent for leniency. Respondents' arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondents.