Tvl V Ramasamy vs. The State Tax Officer
Facts
The petitioner, Tvl.V.Ramasamy, challenged proceedings initiated by the State Tax Officer (1st Respondent) under Section 73 of the GST Act, dated 13.05.2024, for the assessment year 2022-2023. A consequential summary order in FORM GST DRC 07 was also issued on the same date. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner (CT) (2nd Respondent). Although the appeal was filed within the condonable period, the petitioner failed to file a separate application for condonation of delay. Consequently, the 2nd Respondent rejected the appeal solely on this ground, as evidenced by a proceeding dated 08.04.2025. The petitioner then filed a writ petition before the High Court seeking to quash these orders.
Held
The Court held that while the appellate authority was not strictly faulted for its view on the procedural requirement of a separate condonation application, in the interest of substantial justice, the impugned order rejecting the appeal was set aside. The High Court, invoking its inherent powers, condoned the delay occasioned in filing the appeal. The appellate authority was directed to number the appeal and dispose of it on its merits and in accordance with law. The Court clarified that the petitioner was at liberty to canvass all contentions against the assessment order before the appellate authority. The order of the appellate authority rejecting the appeal was quashed, but the assessment order itself was not quashed.
Key Issues
1. Whether the appellate authority was justified in rejecting the petitioner's appeal solely on the ground of failure to file a separate application for condonation of delay, despite the appeal being filed within the condonable period, under Section 107 of the CGST Act? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the appeal was filed within the condonable period, and the rejection on a procedural technicality of not filing a separate condonation application, while substantial justice could be served, was erroneous. The petitioner sought condonation of delay by the High Court itself. Revenue's contention: The judgment records no specific argument from the revenue regarding the rejection of the appeal on the ground of non-filing of a condonation application. The revenue was represented, but their specific arguments are not detailed in the provided text.
Sections Cited
Section 73, Section 107
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 24.11.2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN and W.M.P.(MD)Nos.26545 & 26546 of 2025 Tvl.V.Ramasamy ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The State Tax Officer, Office of the Commercial Tax Officer, Kodumudi Assessment Circle, Karur, Tamil Nadu. 2.The Deputy Commissioner (CT), Erode, Tamil Nadu. ... Respondents Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the impugned proceedings passed by the 1st Respondent in the order vide GSTIN No 33AKRPR9686C1ZH/2022-23 dated 13.05.2024 passed under section 73 of the act along with the consequential summary order in FORM GST DRC 07 vide ref no. ZD330524083050U dated 13.05.2024 along with consequential proceeding of acknowledgment for submission of appeal in FORM GST APL 02 vide ref no. ZD330425078401M dated 08.04.2025 issued by the 2nd Respondent to quash the same. 1/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis For Petitioner : Mr.D
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.