Guru Medicals vs. The Deputy Commissioner (CT)

Held

The Court held that the petitioner had demonstrated sufficient and reasonable cause for the delay of 41 days in filing the appeal before the First Appellate Authority. The Court found that the delay was solely due to the ill-health of the petitioner, which prevented them from being aware of the assessment order. Consequently, the Court condoned the delay. The order of the First Appellate Authority, which rejected the appeal on the ground of limitation, was set aside. The Court directed the First Appellate Authority to take up the appeal and dispose of it on its merits and in accordance with law, after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. No order as to costs was made. The connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.

Facts

The petitioner, Tvl.Guru Medicals, represented by its Proprietor, filed a writ petition challenging an order of demand dated 22.08.2024, passed by the Deputy State Tax Officer – 2, and a consequential order dated 07.03.2025, passed by the Deputy Commissioner (CT) (First Appellate Authority). The petitioner's appeal before the first respondent was rejected on the ground of delay. The petitioner stated that due to illness, they were unaware of the assessment order for the period 2019-2020 and subsequently filed an appeal with a delay of 41 days. The appeal was rejected solely due to this delay. The respondents, through the Government Advocate, submitted that if the Court found sufficient cause for the delay, appropriate orders could be passed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner has demonstrated sufficient and reasonable cause for the delay of 41 days in filing the appeal before the First Appellate Authority, thereby warranting condonation of delay under the relevant provisions of the GST Act and Rules? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner contended that the delay of 41 days in filing the appeal was solely attributable to their ill-health, which rendered them unaware of the assessment order passed by the second respondent. They argued that this constituted a reasonable cause for the delay and that the appeal should be considered on its merits. Respondents' Arguments: 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 the condonation of delay if justified.