M/S.B.V.Traders vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)

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 petitioner's lack of GST knowledge, portal access issues, and the reliance on a part-time accountant who failed to notify them of the assessment proceedings. The Court found these circumstances sufficient to justify condoning the 95-day delay. The ratio decidendi is that a genuine lack of knowledge and reliance on a negligent third party can constitute sufficient cause for condoning delays in statutory appeals, particularly when the revenue does not strongly contest the cause. Consequently, the Court allowed the writ petition, condoned the delay of 95 days, set aside the order of the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), and directed the second respondent to take up the appeal and dispose of it on merits after affording a personal hearing to the petitioner. No order as to costs was made.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s.B.V.Traders, filed a writ petition challenging an ex-parte assessment order dated 30.11.2023, passed by the Assistant Commissioner (ST) for the assessment year 2022-23, and a subsequent order dated 15.11.2024, by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT) rejecting the petitioner's appeal due to a 95-day delay. The petitioner attributed the delay and failure to attend the assessment proceedings to a part-time accountant's negligence and a lack of GST knowledge and portal access. The petitioner became aware of the assessment only when recovery proceedings were initiated, prompting the delayed appeal.

Key Issues

1. Whether the delay of 95 days in filing the appeal before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT) is to be condoned, considering the petitioner's circumstances, under Section 107 of the TNGST Act, 2017, read with Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, as applicable to GST proceedings? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the delay was caused by their lack of GST knowledge, portal access issues, and the failure of their part-time accountant to inform them about the assessment proceedings. They contended that this constituted a reasonable cause for the delay, warranting condonation. Respondents' Contention: The learned Government Advocate for the respondents fairly submitted that if the Court found sufficient and reasonable cause for the delay, appropriate orders could be passed.