Tvl Ropeway And Resorts Private Limited vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)

Held

The Court held that the order passed by the second respondent, rejecting the petitioner's appeal on the ground of limitation, was unsustainable. The Court exercised its discretion in favour of the petitioner, noting that the appeal was filed only three days beyond the condonable period. The Court quashed the order of the second respondent dated 20.03.2025. The case was remitted back to the second respondent to pass a fresh order on merits, without reference to the limitation period. The ratio decidendi is that High Courts, in writ jurisdiction, can exercise discretion to condone minor delays in filing appeals, especially when the merits of the case are yet to be examined, to uphold the principles of natural justice.

Facts

The petitioner, Tvl Ropeway and Resorts Private Limited, filed a writ petition challenging an assessment order dated 28.08.2024 passed by the Assistant Commissioner (ST) for the assessment year 2019-20. The petitioner also challenged a consequential order dated 20.03.2025 passed by the Deputy Commissioner (CT), GST Appeal, which rejected the petitioner's appeal at a preliminary stage. The rejection was based on the ground that the appeal was filed beyond the condonable period of limitation. The judgment notes that the appeal was filed three days beyond the condonable period.

Key Issues

1. Whether the order passed by the second respondent rejecting the petitioner's appeal on the ground of limitation is sustainable in law, considering the principles of natural justice and the discretion available to condone delay? The petitioner contended that the impugned orders were illegal and in gross violation of the principles of natural justice. The petitioner argued that the appeal was filed only three days beyond the condonable period of limitation and that the second respondent ought to have exercised discretion in favour of the petitioner. The revenue/State did not record any specific arguments in the judgment, but their presence as respondents implies opposition to the petitioner's plea.