Bharath Motors vs. The State Tax Officer (Data-3)

Held

The Court held that the petitioner had demonstrated a reasonable cause for the 5-day delay in filing the appeal before the second respondent. The Court reasoned that the delay occurred due to the petitioner's inability to access the web portal, which was accepted as a valid explanation. Consequently, the Court allowed the writ petition, condoned the delay of 5 days in filing the appeal, and set aside the order of the appellate authority (second respondent). The Court directed the second respondent 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. The issue of the validity of the ex-parte assessment order itself was not decided on merits, as the matter was remanded for fresh consideration after condoning the delay in filing the appeal.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Bharath Motors, filed a writ petition challenging an ex-parte assessment order dated 18.09.2024 passed by the State Tax Officer (first respondent) for the assessment year 2023-24, and a subsequent rejection order dated 21.03.2025 by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (second respondent). The petitioner was unable to attend the personal hearing due to a lack of GST knowledge and reliance on a part-time accountant who failed to inform them of the proceedings. Upon becoming aware of recovery proceedings, the petitioner filed an appeal, which was rejected by the second respondent due to a 5-day delay. The petitioner's inability to access the web portal was cited as the reason for the delay.

Key Issues

1. Whether the delay of 5 days in filing the appeal before the second respondent, caused by the petitioner's inability to access the web portal, constitutes a sufficient and reasonable cause for condonation? (Question of fact and law, turning on principles of condonation of delay and principles of natural justice). Petitioner's argument: The petitioner contended that the delay was solely attributable to their inability to access the web portal, which prevented them from filing the appeal within the stipulated time. They argued that this was a reasonable cause for the delay. 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 condoning the delay if a reasonable cause is established.