M/S. Tvl Pranav Enterprises vs. The Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes

Held

The Court held that the petitioner had demonstrated a reasonable cause for the delay of 49 days in filing the appeal before the second respondent. The reasoning was based on the petitioner's submission that the delay occurred due to their unawareness of the impugned order and the assessment proceedings, which they attributed to reliance on a private accountant and a lack of GST knowledge. The Court found these circumstances to constitute sufficient grounds for condoning the delay. Accordingly, the writ petition was allowed, the delay was condoned, and a direction was issued to the second respondent (Deputy Commissioner (Appeal) (GST)) to take up the appeal and dispose of it on its merits after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. No order as to costs was made.

Facts

The petitioner, Tvl. Pranav Enterprises, engaged in the resale of fast-moving consumer goods, challenges an ex-parte assessment order dated 29.04.2024, issued by the Assistant Commissioner (ST)(FAC), Sivakasi. The petitioner claims they were unaware of the assessment proceedings due to reliance on a private accountant who failed to inform them and due to lack of GST knowledge and portal access. Consequently, the petitioner could not attend the personal hearing. Upon learning of the order after 120 days, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeal) (GST) with a delay of 49 days, which was rejected solely on grounds of limitation. This writ petition followed, seeking to challenge the order of demand and the rejection of the appeal.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner has demonstrated sufficient and reasonable cause for the delay of 49 days in filing the appeal before the second respondent, thereby warranting condonation of delay under the relevant provisions of the GST Act or Rules? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner contended that the delay was occasioned solely by their lack of knowledge regarding the assessment proceedings and the ex-parte order, which came to their notice only after a significant lapse of time. They attributed this to their reliance on a private accountant and their limited understanding of GST procedures and portal access. This lack of awareness prevented them from participating in the assessment and subsequently filing the appeal within the prescribed time. Respondents' Argument: The learned Government Advocate for the respondents fairly submitted that if the Court finds sufficient and reasonable cause for the delay, appropriate orders may be passed, indicating no strong opposition to the condonation of delay if a reasonable cause is established.