Auto Mark Private Limited Vs Commissioner (Madras High Court)
Date: September 1, 2024
Subject Matter
73-Day delay in filing appeal condoned as notice was sent to former consultant
Summary
In the case of Auto Mark Private Limited Vs Commissioner, the Madras High Court examined a situation where the petitioner experienced a 73-day delay in filing an appeal. The delay was attributed to the fact that all GST communications were sent to the petitioner’s former consultant, which left the petitioner unaware of the necessary actions required to respond. As a result, the petitioner missed the appeal filing deadline and sought the court's permission to condone the delay, explaining that it was justified. The respondents, however, argued that the notices were correctly dispatched, and the petitioner had failed to act promptly. Upon reviewing the circumstances, the Court found the petitioner’s reasons for the delay compelling. Consequently, it condoned the 73-day delay, instructed the appellate authority to accept the appeal, and mandated that the petitioner be provided an opportunity to present their case. The order did not impose any costs, and the associated miscellaneous petitions were also closed.
This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 06.08.2024 passed by the 1st respondent.
2. Mr. G. Nanmaran, learned Special Government Pleader, takes notice on behalf of the respondents. By consent of the parties, the main writ petition is taken up for disposal at the admission stage itself.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that all notices/communications were sent by the respondent to the earlier consultant of the petitioner. Since the petitioner was not aware of the said notices, they failed to file their reply within the time. Under these circumstances, the impugned order came to be passed by the respondent without providing any opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner and the same was also sent to the email id of the earlier consultant, due to which, an appeal was preferred by the petitioner, against the said impugned order with a delay of 73 days. However, the said appeal was not at all considered by the respondents till date.
4. Further, he would submit that the respondents have no jurisdiction to entertain the condone delay application and hence, he requests this Court to condone the delay in filing the appeal and grant one last opportunity to present their case before the concerned Appellate Authority.
5. In reply, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents would submit that though all the notices were duly sent by the respondent, the petitioner has only failed to avail the opportunity and hence, the impugned order came to be passed by the respondent. However, he requests this Court to pass appropriate orders by condoning
5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate for the respondents and also perused the materials available on record.
6. In the present case, it appears that the petitioner was unaware of the impugned order, due to which, there was a delay in filing the appeal and the reason provided for non-filing of appeal within the prescribed time appears to be genuine. Therefore, being satisfied with the reasons assigned by the petitioner and also considering the submission made by the petitioner, this Court is inclined to condone the delay. Accordingly, this Court passes the following order:-
(i) The delay of 73 days in filing the appeal before the 2nd respondent is hereby condoned.
(ii) The 2nd respondent is directed to take the appeal on record and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law, after providing an sufficient opportunity to the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible.
7. With the above directions, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are also closed.