Tvl. Deepa Traders Vs Deputy Commissioner (ST)
Date: August 13, 2024
Subject Matter
Non-service of hard copies of adjudication order: Delay in filing appeal condoned
Summary
The writ petition was filed challenging a demand order issued to the petitioner (a wholesale painting seller) by the GST authorities. The petitioner had been regular in filing tax returns but failed to respond to a show cause notice due to procedural ambiguities after the GST’s enactment, resulting in an order of demand issued on 08.02.2023. The petitioner only learned of this order after the authorities began collection actions, leading to an appeal being filed 285 days late, which was subsequently dismissed by the appellate authority due to this delay. The petitioner argued the delay was due to bonafide reasons and sought to quash both the demand order and the dismissal of the appeal. The respondents conceded that if reasonable cause for the delay was found, relief could be granted. The court acknowledged the petitioner’s reasonable cause for the delay, allowing the writ petition, condoning the delay, and directing the appellate authority to hear the case on its merits. No costs were imposed, and related petitions were closed.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
This writ petition challenges the impugned order of demand passed by the second respondent dated 08.02.2023 and the order of the first respondent dated 25.04.2024 rejecting the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of demand.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner firm runs a wholesale business of selling of painting and he has been regular in filing the monthly returns. However, due to ambiguity in the procedure adopted after the GST enactment, he failed to note the show cause notice dated 19.12.2022 issued by the second respondent showing some discrepancies in GSTR returns. Subsequent thereto, the impugned demand order came to be issued on 08.02.2023 by the second respondent. The petitioner came to know of the demand order only after the respondents initiated coercive steps to recover the demand amount and immediately thereafter, the petitioner filed an appeal before the first respondent, however, with a delay of 285 days. The appeal was dismissed on the ground of delay. The learned counsel submits that the delay is neither wilful nor wanton but due to bonafide reasons and hence, prays for quashing of the impugned orders of the first and second respondent.
3. Per contra, the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents would fairly submit that if the Court finds sufficient and reasonable cause for the delay, appropriate orders may be passed.
4. Considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents and also considering the fact that the notices were uploaded in the portal, but no hard copy was served on the petitioner, this Court feels that reasonable cause has been shown by the petitioner for the delay. Therefore, this Court is inclined to condone the delay of 285 days in filing the appeal.
5. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The delay of 285 days in filing the appeal before the first respondent is condoned and the order of the appellate authority/first respondent is set aside. The first respondent is hereby directed to take up the appeal as if it is filed in time and dispose of the same on merits and in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.