M/S.Lilly Whites Garments Private Limited vs. The State Tax Officer (Fac)
Held
The Court held that the petitioner had demonstrated a reasonable cause for the 32-day delay in filing the appeal before the second respondent. The reasoning was based on the fact that the delay occurred solely due to the ill-health of the proprietor of the petitioner's concern. Consequently, the Court found it appropriate to condone the delay. The order of the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (second respondent) was set aside. The Court directed the second respondent to take up the appeal and dispose of it on its merits and in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. No order as to costs was made.
Facts
The petitioner, M/s. Lilly Whites Garments Private Limited, challenged an ex-parte demand order dated 16.12.2023, passed by the State Tax Officer for the assessment year 2018-19, and a subsequent rejection order dated 13.06.2024 by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner. The petitioner claimed they were unaware of the assessment proceedings due to reliance on a part-time accountant and the proprietor's ill-health. This led to an inability to attend the personal hearing and a delay of 32 days in filing an appeal before the second respondent. The appeal was rejected solely on the grounds of this delay.
Key Issues
1. Whether the delay of 32 days in filing the appeal before the second respondent is attributable to a sufficient and reasonable cause, thereby warranting condonation under the relevant provisions of the TNGST Act, 2017? The petitioner argued that the delay was occasioned by the ill-health of the proprietor and a lack of GST knowledge, leading to reliance on an accountant who failed to inform them of the assessment proceedings. They contended that this constituted a reasonable cause for the delay in filing the appeal. The respondents, through the Government Advocate, 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.
Sections Cited
Section 73, Section 75(4)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 24.02.2025 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIVEK KUMAR SINGH and W.M.P.(MD)Nos.3509 and 3510 of 2025 M/s.Lilly Whites Garments Private Limited, Represented by its Director S.Gauthaman, GSTIN 33AABCL9777F1Z9, No 379B, K. P. Road, Nagercoil – 629001. ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The State Tax Officer (FAC), Office of the State Tax Officer, Nagercoil - 1Assessment Circle, Nagercoil – 629001. 2.The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Commercial Taxes Buildings, Reservelane, Palayamkottai. ... Respondents P RAYER:
Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records on the file of the first respondent in GSTIN 33AABCL9777F1Z9/2018-19, dated 16.12.2023, for the assessment year 2018-19 under section 73 of TNGST Act 2017 and consequential rejection order dated 13.06.2024 issued by the second respondent in Form GST APL-02 and to quash the both as cryptic, non-speaking, illegal, arbitrary, wholly without jurisdiction and direct the respondent to 1/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.i
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Madras High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.