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

Held

The Court held that the petitioner had demonstrated sufficient and reasonable cause for the delay of 95 days in filing the appeal. The Court reasoned that the delay was primarily due to the petitioner's lack of GST knowledge, limited portal access, and the failure of their part-time accountant to inform them about the assessment proceedings. The Court found these circumstances to be beyond the petitioner's direct control and therefore excusable. Consequently, the Court condoned the delay. The order of the Appellate Deputy Commissioner, which rejected the appeal on grounds of delay, was set aside. The Court directed the Appellate Deputy Commissioner to take up the petitioner's appeal and dispose of it on its merits after providing the petitioner with an opportunity of a personal hearing. The ratio decidendi is that genuine difficulties arising from lack of expertise and reliance on third parties, when demonstrated with reasonable cause, can justify condonation of delay in statutory appeals.

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 2021-22. The petitioner also challenged the order dated 15.11.2024, by which the Appellate Deputy Commissioner rejected their appeal due to a delay of 95 days. The petitioner attributed the non-appearance during assessment proceedings and the delay in filing the appeal to their lack of GST knowledge, limited portal access, and reliance on a part-time accountant who failed to inform them about the proceedings. The respondents, represented by the Government Advocate, submitted that appropriate orders could be passed if sufficient cause for the delay was found.

Key Issues

1. Whether the delay of 95 days in filing the appeal before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner, caused by the petitioner's lack of GST knowledge, portal access issues, and failure of a part-time accountant to provide information, 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 unintentional and resulted from circumstances beyond their control, specifically their inexperience with GST procedures and reliance on an accountant. They contended that the ex-parte assessment order and the rejection of their appeal were therefore illegal and arbitrary. Revenue's 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, indicating no strong opposition to condoning the delay if justified.