AVM HI FI Stationeries Vs Deputy Commissioner
Date: April 24, 2025
Subject Matter
Extensive legal consultation does not provide sufficient cause for the delayed filing of a GST appeal. However delay condoned in the interest of justice.
Summary
This writ petition challenges two orders: an assessment order dated June 5, 2024, and a rejection order dated January 31, 2025, issued by the GST authorities. The petitioner initially filed an appeal against the assessment order, but it was rejected due to a delay of 90 days beyond the condonable period. The petitioner argued that this delay was due to taking legal advice and reviewing the situation before deciding to appeal. On the other hand, the respondents, represented by the Additional Government Pleader, contended that the delay was the petitioner's fault, and they did not provide a valid reason for the delay; thus, the rejection of the appeal was justified. After reviewing the case, the Court found no merit in the reasons provided by the petitioner for the delay, supporting the Appellate Authority's decision to reject the appeal. However, in the interest of justice, the Court decided to condone the delay and allow the petitioner one last opportunity to present their case before the Appellate Authority. This was conditional upon the petitioner paying an additional 10% of the disputed tax amount. Consequently, the Court set aside the rejection order, condoned the delay, and directed the Appellate Authority to register the appeal and make a decision based on merit. The writ petition was disposed of without costs, and connected miscellaneous petitions were also closed.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
This writ petition has been filed challenging both the impugned assessment order dated 05.06.2024 and the impugned rejection order dated 31.01.2025 passed by the respondents.
2. Mr. T. N. C. Kaushik, learned Additional 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 in this case, initially, the assessment order came to be passed by the 2nd respondent on 05.06.2024. Aggrieved over the said assessment order, the appeal against the aforesaid assessment order was preferred by the petitioner belatedly. According to the petitioner, the said delay has occurred since they were extensively exploring the option by obtaining legal advice and reviewing the concerned facts and thereafter, they took an informed decision to pursue the matter with the appeal. They had also stated the said reason in their appeal. However, since the delay is beyond the condonable period, the appeal was rejected by the respondent, vide rejection order dated 31.01.2025, on the aspect of limitation. Therefore, this writ petition has been filed.
4. On the other hand, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents would submit that the delay, in filing the appeal, has occurred only due to the fault on the part of the petitioner. Further, he would submit that no valid reason has been assigned by the petitioner for the delay in filing the appeal. Under these circumstances, the Appellate Authority has rightly rejected the appeal vide the impugned order dated 31.01.2025. Therefore, he requests this Court to pass appropriate orders.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents and also perused the materials available on record.
6. In the case on hand, initially, the impugned assessment order was passed by the 2nd respondent on 05.06.2024. Aggrieved over the same, an appeal was belatedly preferred by the petitioner on 04.01.2025, i.e., with a delay of 90 days. Since the delay was beyond the condonnable period, the aforesaid appeal was rejected by the respondent vide impugned order dated 31.01.2025. According to the petitioner, since they were extensively exploring the option by obtaining legal advice and reviewing the concerned facts and thereafter, they took an informed decision to pursue the matter with the appeal, they were unable to file the appeal within time.
7. Upon perusal of the appeal filed by the petitioner, it is clear that there is no merit in the reason assigned by the petitioner for delay in filing the appeal and hence, this Court is of the view that the Appellate Authority has rightly rejected the said appeal vide the impugned order dated 31.01.2025.
8. However, normally, a demand has to attain its finality only after providing sufficient opportunities to the Assessee. In such view of the matter, in the interest of justice, this Court is inclined to provide a last opportunity to the petitioner to present his case before the Appellate Authority by condonning the delay, in filing the appeal against the impugned assessment order, on terms.
9. Therefore, though the petitioner had already paid 10% of the disputed tax amount as pre-deposit while filing the appeal, considering the delay of 90 days, this Court directs the petitioner to pay additional 10% of the disputed tax amount to the respondents. Accordingly, this Court passes the following order:
i) The impugned order dated 31.01.2025 is set aside and the delay of 90 days in filing the appeal against the assessment order is hereby condoned, subject to the payment of additional 10% of the disputed tax amount by the petitioner to the respondent-Department.
ii) Upon payment of the said amount, the 1st respondent/Appellate Authority 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.
10. With the above directions, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are also closed.