M/S.A K Aircon vs. The State Tax Officer

Held

The Court held that the petitioner had demonstrated a reasonable cause for the delay in filing the appeal, attributing it to the ill-health of the proprietor. Consequently, the Court condoned the delay of 89 days in filing the appeal before the 2nd respondent. The order of the appellate authority (2nd respondent) rejecting the appeal was set aside. The Court directed the 2nd respondent to take up the appeal and dispose of it on its merits and in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The Court did not express any opinion on the merits of the original assessment order or the grounds for quashing it, as the primary focus was on condoning the delay to allow the appeal to be heard.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. A K Aircon., represented by its Proprietor, K. Karthick, filed a writ petition challenging an order of demand dated 20.07.2024 passed by the State Tax Officer (1st respondent) and a consequential rejection order dated 05.03.2025 by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (ST)(GST) (2nd respondent). The petitioner, a trader of air conditioning items, failed to attend assessment proceedings due to lack of GST knowledge and reliance on a part-time accountant, resulting in an ex-parte assessment order. Upon becoming aware of recovery proceedings, the petitioner filed an appeal before the 2nd respondent, which was rejected due to a delay of 89 days, attributed to the proprietor's ill-health.

Key Issues

1. Whether the delay of 89 days in filing the appeal before the 2nd respondent, caused by the proprietor's ill-health, constitutes a sufficient and reasonable cause for condonation under Section 75(4) of the TNGST Act, 2017? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the delay was solely due to the ill-health of the proprietor and sought condonation of the delay to pursue the appeal on merits. The petitioner also sought to quash the orders as cryptic, non-speaking, illegal, arbitrary, and without jurisdiction, requesting a fresh order after affording an opportunity of personal hearing. Respondents' contention: 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.