M/S. Rown Metal Scrps vs. The Deputy Commissioner (CT)

Held

The Court held that the petitioner had demonstrated a reasonable cause for the delay in filing the appeal. The reasoning was based on the fact that the delay occurred solely because the petitioner had no knowledge of the notice issued by the respondents. The Court found this lack of actual notice to be a sufficient justification for the delay. Consequently, the Court decided to condone the delay of 46 days in filing the appeal. The order of the appellate authority/first respondent was set aside. The Court directed the first respondent to take up the appeal on merits and dispose of it within four months from the date of receipt of the order, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. No issue was expressly left undecided.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Rown Metal Scraps, a registered dealer in metal scraps, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 26.10.2024 passed by the Deputy Commissioner (CT), Karur District (first respondent). The petitioner claimed they had no knowledge of a notice in Form DRC-01A served through the GST Portal, and the Deputy State Tax Officer-2 (second respondent) failed to send the notice by post. Upon learning of the assessment proceedings, the petitioner filed an appeal with a 46-day delay before the second respondent, which was rejected solely on the grounds of limitation. The petitioner then filed this writ petition seeking to quash the appellate order.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner demonstrated sufficient and reasonable cause for the 46-day delay in filing the appeal before the appellate authority, thereby warranting condonation of delay? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the delay occurred because they had no knowledge of the notice issued by the respondents, as it was served only through the GST portal and not by post. They contended that this lack of actual notice constituted a reasonable cause for the delay. Respondents' contention: The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents fairly submitted that if the Court found sufficient and reasonable cause for the delay, appropriate orders could be passed. No specific arguments against condonation were advanced.