S.Kumaran vs. The Secretary TO The Government

Facts

The petitioner, S. Kumaran, is challenging an assessment order dated 29.12.2023 passed by the second respondent, the State Tax Officer – II. The petitioner filed an appeal before the first respondent, the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (GST), but it was rejected because it was filed beyond the condonable period of limitation, with a delay of 102 days. The petitioner has paid the assessed tax and interest, and the dispute pertains solely to the penalty amount. The petitioner seeks to quash the impugned proceedings rejecting the appeal.

Held

The Court held that an indulgent view could be taken in this case. The reasoning was based on the principle that where the delay in filing an appeal is marginal, the appellate authority may be directed to entertain the appeal. Specifically, the Court noted that the assessed tax and interest had been paid by the petitioner, and the dispute was solely concerning the penalty. This factor, coupled with the marginal delay, led the Court to believe that an exception could be made. The Court's decision is that the impugned order dated 28.05.2025, which rejected the appeal, is quashed. The first respondent, the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (GST), is directed to number the petitioner's appeal and dispose of it on its merits and in accordance with the law. The ratio decidendi is that when tax and interest are paid and the dispute is only about penalty, a marginal delay in filing an appeal may be condoned by the appellate authority.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (GST) should be directed to entertain the petitioner's appeal, despite a delay of 102 days beyond the condonable period, considering that the assessed tax and interest have been paid and only the penalty is under challenge? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the delay in filing the appeal was marginal and that an indulgent view should be taken, especially since the tax and interest have been paid, and the dispute is confined to the penalty. The petitioner likely relied on the High Court's consistent view that marginal delays can be condoned. Respondents' Contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondents. It is implied that the respondents would have relied on the statutory provisions regarding the limitation period for filing appeals and the rejection of appeals filed beyond such periods.