Jeevan Autozone PVT LTD vs. Deputy Commissioner (CT)

Held

The Court allowed the writ petition. It found that the petitioner had demonstrated reasonable cause for the delay of 101 days in filing the appeal, primarily due to the shifting of its earlier business premises. Consequently, the Court condoned the delay. The impugned order dated 15.11.2024 passed by the first respondent was set aside. The Court directed the first respondent to take up the appeal on merits and dispose of it in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, within three months from the date of receipt of the order. The respondents were directed to maintain the status quo prevailing as on the date of the order. No order as to costs was made. The connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.

Facts

The petitioner, Jeevan Autozone Pvt. Ltd., filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 15.11.2024 passed by the Deputy Commissioner (CT), State GST (Appeals), Tirunelveli (the first respondent). This order rejected the petitioner's appeal against a demand order. The petitioner contended that it had closed its business and shifted premises, and notices were sent to the old address, which was occupied by a third party. This led to the respondent department passing a final order without affording the petitioner an opportunity to be heard, violating principles of natural justice. The petitioner claimed to have become aware of the orders only in September 2024, causing a delay of 101 days in filing the appeal. The petitioner sought to quash the impugned order and direct the first respondent to condone the delay and admit the appeal.

Key Issues

1. Whether the delay of 101 days in filing the appeal before the first respondent is liable to be condoned on the grounds of sufficient and reasonable cause, as per the petitioner's submission that the delay occurred due to the shifting of business premises and non-receipt of notices, thereby violating principles of natural justice. 2. Whether the impugned order dated 15.11.2024, which rejected the petitioner's appeal, is liable to be quashed for being a non-speaking order and passed without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the delay was solely due to the shifting of its business premises and the respondent department's failure to serve notices at the correct address, leading to the passing of orders without proper opportunity, thus violating principles of natural justice. They also contended that the impugned order was non-speaking and passed without a fair hearing. Respondents' arguments: The learned Government Advocate for the respondents fairly submitted that if the Court finds sufficient and reasonable cause for the delay, appropriate orders may be passed.