V Rathnam vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of GST And Central Excise

Held

The Court held that the petitioner had demonstrated a reasonable cause for the delay of 87 days in filing the appeal. The reasoning was based on the petitioner's submission that the delay occurred solely due to an accident, which led to their unawareness of the initial assessment order. The Court found this explanation to be sufficient and inclined to condone the delay. Consequently, the order of the appellate authority (second respondent) rejecting the appeal on grounds of limitation was set aside. The Court directed the second respondent to take up the appeal and dispose of it on its merits and in accordance with law, after providing the petitioner an opportunity of hearing, within six months from the date of receipt of the order. No order as to costs was made.

Facts

The petitioner, V. Rathnam, challenged an order-in-original dated June 28, 2022, passed by the Assistant Commissioner of GST and Central Excise, Trichy I Division, and a subsequent order-in-appeal dated December 31, 2024, passed by the Commissioner of GST and Central Excise (Appeals), Coimbatore. The petitioner's appeal before the second respondent was rejected solely on the ground of delay, specifically 87 days. The petitioner contended that the delay was unintentional, occurring due to an accident that made them unaware of the initial assessment order. Upon learning of the order, the petitioner promptly filed an appeal, which was subsequently dismissed for being time-barred.

Key Issues

1. Whether the delay of 87 days in filing the appeal before the second respondent constitutes a sufficient and reasonable cause, warranting condonation under the relevant provisions of the GST law? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner argued that the delay was attributable to an accident, which rendered them unaware of the initial assessment order. They asserted that upon gaining knowledge of the order, they acted diligently by filing the appeal. Therefore, the delay should be considered reasonable and condoned. Respondents' Argument: The learned counsel for the respondents fairly submitted that if the Court found sufficient and reasonable cause for the delay, appropriate orders could be passed. No specific arguments were made against the condonation of delay on merits.