Anil Kumar vs. The Deputy Commissioner (GST Appeals) (St)

Held

The Court held that the petitioner had demonstrated a reasonable cause for the delay in filing the appeal before the first respondent, attributing the delay solely to his ill-health. The Court found the petitioner's explanation for the delay to be sufficient and inclined to condone it. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the first respondent, the Deputy Commissioner (GST Appeals), to take up the petitioner's appeal and dispose of it on its merits and in accordance with the law. The first respondent was also directed to afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before passing the final order. No order as to costs was made. The Court expressly left undecided any issues pertaining to the merits of the original assessment order.

Facts

The petitioner, M. Anilkumar, filed a writ petition challenging an order of demand dated 22.04.2024 passed by the State Tax Officer/Assistant Commissioner (2nd respondent). The petitioner contended that due to illness, he was unaware of the assessment order for the Assessment Year 2018-2019. Upon learning of the order, he filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner (GST Appeals) (1st respondent), but it was rejected solely on the grounds of limitation. The petitioner's primary grievance was that the delay in filing the appeal was attributable to his ill-health. The respondents, represented by the Government Advocate, submitted that appropriate orders could be passed if sufficient and reasonable cause for the delay was found.

Key Issues

1. Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the first respondent, occasioned by the petitioner's ill-health, constitutes a sufficient and reasonable cause for condonation? (Question of fact and law) The petitioner argued that his ill-health prevented him from being aware of the assessment order and subsequently filing the appeal within the prescribed time. He contended that this constituted a reasonable cause for the delay. The respondents, through the Government Advocate, indicated their stance that if the Court found sufficient and reasonable cause for the delay, they would not object to appropriate orders being passed. The respondents did not present any counter-arguments against the petitioner's claim of ill-health as a cause for delay.