Vejiletchumi Arumugam vs. The Commissioner Of GST
Facts
The petitioner, Vejiletchumi Arumugam, filed a writ petition (WP(MD)SR.No.90139 of 2018) challenging an order dated 16.07.2015 passed by the Joint Commissioner (2nd respondent) and a subsequent order dated 28.02.2018 passed by the Commissioner of GST, Service Tax and Central Excise (Appeals) (1st respondent). The petitioner sought to quash these orders and direct the respondents to return gold articles or permit their export. The petitioner filed an interlocutory application (WMP(MD) No.9503 of 2021) to condone a delay of 555 days in representing the writ petition. The delay, according to the petitioner's affidavit, was due to the requirement of attesting the affidavit from Malaysia, where she was unable to return within the prescribed time.
Held
The Court held that the petitioner had provided a cogent reasoning for the inordinate delay of 555 days in representing the writ petition. The Court found the grounds urged by the petitioner to be tenable, noting a continued cause of action. Consequently, the Court was inclined to condone the delay. The operative direction was to allow the petition for condonation of delay, subject to the petitioner paying a cost of Rs. 5,000/- to the Legal Aid Committee, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, within two weeks. The Registry was directed to number the Writ Petition if it was otherwise in order upon receipt of the costs.
Key Issues
1. Whether the delay of 555 days in representing the writ petition is liable to be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, considering the reasons provided by the petitioner? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the delay was not willful or wanton but caused by unavoidable circumstances, specifically the requirement to get her affidavit attested from Malaysia. She argued that this constituted sufficient cause for condoning the delay. The petitioner also highlighted a continued cause of action. Revenue's arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondents regarding the condonation of delay. However, the respondents were represented by counsel.
Sections Cited
Section 5
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Special Original Juri iction ) Thur ay, the Twenty Ninth day of July Two Thousand and Twenty One PRESENT The Hon'ble Mrs.Justice J.NISHA BANU WMP(MD) No.9503 of 2021 IN WP(MD)SR.No.90139 of 2018 VEJILETCHUMI ARUMUGAM ... PETITIONER/PETITIONER Vs
THE COMMISSIONER OF GST, SERVICE TAX AND CENTRAL EXCISE (APPEALS), CIRCUIT OFFICE, TRICHY, NO.1, WILLIAMS ROAD, CANTONMENT, TRICHY-01
THE JOINT COMMISSIONER, O/O. THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, NO.1, WILLIAMS ROAD, CANTONMENT, TRICHY-01. ... RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS Petition filed praying that in the circumstances stated therein and in the affidavit filed therewith the High Court may be pleased to condone the delay of 555 days in representing this WP(MD).SR 90139/2018. PRAYER IN WP(MD)SR.No.90139 of 2018 : To call for the records on the files of the 2nd respondent pertaining to its order in C.No.VIII/10/60/2015 Cus Adj dated 16.07.2015 and the subsequent orders bearing A.No. C24/44/2017-TRY (CUS) dated 28.02.2018 passed by the 1st respondent and to quash the same consequently direct the respondents either to re
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.