Vtc vs. The State Tax Officer
Held
The Court held that the petitioner had demonstrated a reasonable cause for the 14-day delay in filing the appeal before the 2nd Respondent, primarily due to the ill-health of the proprietor. The Court found the explanation for the delay to be satisfactory. Consequently, the Court condoned the delay and set aside the order of the appellate authority (2nd Respondent) which had rejected the appeal on grounds of limitation. The Court directed the 2nd Respondent to take up the appeal on merits and in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. The assessment order passed by the 1st Respondent was implicitly set aside by virtue of the appeal being directed to be heard on merits.
Facts
The petitioner, VTC, a trader in cashew nuts, filed a writ petition challenging an ex-parte assessment order dated 21.08.2024 passed by the State Tax Officer (1st Respondent) for the assessment year 2019-20, and a consequential rejection order dated 21.03.2025 by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner GST Appeals (2nd Respondent). The petitioner failed to attend the personal hearing due to reliance on a part-time accountant and lack of GST knowledge, leading to the ex-parte order. Upon learning of recovery proceedings, the petitioner filed an appeal with the 2nd Respondent, which was rejected due to a delay of 14 days, attributed to the ill-health of the proprietor. The petitioner sought to quash both orders and for a fresh order after a personal hearing.
Key Issues
1. Whether the delay of 14 days in filing the appeal before the 2nd Respondent, caused by the ill-health of the petitioner's proprietor, constitutes a sufficient and reasonable cause for condonation? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the delay was solely due to the ill-health of the proprietor, which prevented timely filing of the appeal. They argued that this constituted a reasonable cause for the delay. Revenue/State's arguments: 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 condoning the delay if justified.
Sections Cited
Section 73, Section 75(4)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 24.04.2025 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIVEK KUMAR SINGH and W.M.P.(MD)Nos.7946 & 7949 of 2025 VTC Rep. by its Managing Partner N.Nandakumar ... Petitioner -vs-
The State Tax Officer, Kuzhithurai Assessment Circle, C.T.Buildings, Kuzhithurai.
The Appellate Deputy Commissioner GST Appeals, Commercial Taxes Buildings, A.R. Lane Road, Thirunelveli.
... Respondents PRAYER:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records on the file of the 1st Respondent in GSTIN. 33AAHFV9930B1Z8/2019-20 dated 21/8/2024 for the assessment year 2019-20 passed by the 1st Respondent under section 73 of TNGST Act 2017 and consequential rejection order ( ARN AD330125022493K) dated 21/3/2025 issued by the 2nd respondent in Form GST APL-02 and to quash the both as cryptic, non-speaking, ____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis illegal , arbitrary, wholly without jurisdiction and direct the respondent to pass order afresh after affording
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.