M/S. Rojaa Fabrics vs. The State Tax Officer (Fac)

Held

The Court held that the petitioner had demonstrated a reasonable cause for the delay in filing the appeal before the second respondent, primarily due to their ill-health. Consequently, the Court decided to condone the delay of 430 days. The order of the appellate authority (second respondent) rejecting the appeal was set aside. The Court directed the second respondent to take up the appeal on merits and in accordance with law, without reference to the period of limitation, and to dispose of it within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The ratio decidendi is that severe ill-health can constitute a reasonable cause for condoning significant delays in filing statutory appeals, and principles of natural justice necessitate an opportunity of hearing before final adjudication.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Rojaa Fabrics, represented by its partner R. Rajendran, filed a writ petition challenging an ex-parte assessment order dated 30.12.2023 passed by the first respondent, the State Tax Officer (FAC), for the assessment year 2017-18, under Section 73 of the TNGST Act, 2017. The petitioner also challenged the consequential rejection order dated 20.03.2025, issued by the second respondent, the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), which rejected the petitioner's appeal due to limitation. The petitioner stated that due to lack of GST knowledge and portal access, they relied on a part-time accountant who failed to inform them about the assessment proceedings, preventing them from attending the personal hearing. The petitioner became aware of the proceedings only when recovery actions were initiated. Their appeal to the second respondent was rejected due to a delay of 430 days, attributed to the petitioner's severe cervical issues.

Key Issues

1. Whether the delay of 430 days in filing the appeal before the second respondent is to be condoned on grounds of reasonable cause, as contemplated under the relevant provisions of the TNGST Act, 2017, considering the petitioner's ill-health? The petitioner argued that the delay was solely due to their severe cervical issues, which constituted a reasonable cause for not filing the appeal within the prescribed time. They contended that the ex-parte assessment order and the subsequent rejection of their appeal were illegal, arbitrary, and passed without jurisdiction, and sought a fresh order after affording an opportunity of personal hearing as per Section 75(4) of the TNGST Act, 2017. The respondents, through the learned Government Advocate, fairly submitted that if the Court found sufficient and reasonable cause for the delay, appropriate orders could be passed. No specific arguments were recorded against the condonation of delay or the petitioner's grievance regarding the lack of opportunity.