M/S. Sivasurya Agencies vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer - Ii

Held

The Court held that while the petitioner's failure to actively participate in the adjudication process could not be entirely excused, the delay of 48 days in filing the appeal was adequately explained by the proprietor's ill-health. In the interest of justice, the Court decided to condone the delay. Consequently, the impugned rejection order dated 29.10.2024 passed by the second respondent was set aside. The matter was remitted back to the second respondent, who was directed to decide the appeal within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. The petitioner was also directed to ensure proper representation in future proceedings, and the second respondent was advised to consider all relevant documents and submissions made by the petitioner while deciding the appeal. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.

Facts

M/s. Sivasurya Agencies (the petitioner) filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 06.10.2023 passed by the Deputy State Tax Officer – II (first respondent) for the assessment year 2022-2023, and a consequential rejection order dated 29.10.2024 passed by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT) (second respondent). The petitioner contended that due to lack of knowledge of GST and limited portal access, they relied on a part-time accountant who failed to inform them about assessment proceedings, leading to an ex parte order. Subsequently, the petitioner filed an appeal before the second respondent, which was rejected due to a delay of 48 days, attributed to the proprietor's ill-health. The respondents argued that the petitioner's claims were an afterthought and did not constitute a valid ground for condoning the delay, emphasizing the petitioner's responsibility for compliance.

Key Issues

1. Whether the delay of 48 days in filing the appeal before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT) is liable to be condoned on the grounds of the proprietor's ill-health and lack of knowledge about GST proceedings. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the delay was solely due to the proprietor's ill-health and that they had a genuine lack of knowledge regarding GST and limited portal access, leading to reliance on a part-time accountant who failed to inform them of the assessment proceedings. They contended that no adverse inference should be drawn due to this delay. Respondents' arguments: The respondents contended that the petitioner's claim of lack of knowledge and portal access was an afterthought and not a valid ground for condoning the delay. They argued that the petitioner failed to monitor proceedings and that the accountant's failure did not absolve the petitioner of their duty to be vigilant. The delay of 48 days was not sufficiently explained and lacked justifiable reasons for condonation.