Delay due to director’s illness: Madras HC Orders Reconsideration of GST Appeal

A.R. Metallurgicals Pvt. Limited Vs Assistant Commissioner (ST) (Madras High Court)

In a recent ruling, the Madras High Court addressed a critical issue concerning the appeal process in GST cases. The case of M/s. A.R. Metallurgicals Pvt. Limited vs. Assistant Commissioner (ST) highlights the court’s stance on procedural delays and the importance of considering extenuating circumstances, such as the illness of a company’s managing director.

The case arose from an assessment order issued on December 28, 2023, against M/s. A.R. Metallurgicals Pvt. Limited. The company challenged this order by filing an appeal, which was submitted with a 19-day delay. The appellate authority rejected the appeal due to this delay, prompting the company to file a writ petition challenging the original order. The petitioner’s counsel argued that the delay was unavoidable due to the ill-health of the company’s managing director. To support this claim, a medical certificate from Lakeside Medical Centre and Hospital was presented. Furthermore, the counsel noted that the petitioner had complied with the requirement of making a 25% pre-deposit. In response, the learned Additional Government Pleader, C. Harsha Raj, acknowledged the notice for the respondent and highlighted additional defects in the appeal, as noted in the rejection order. Despite these points, the primary focus remained on the 19-day delay and the petitioner’s justification for it. Upon examining the appellate authority’s order, the High Court found that the delay was relatively short and substantiated by the medical certificate. The court emphasized that in the interest of justice, it was appropriate to allow the appeal to be heard on its merits. The court directed the appellate authority to accept and process the appeal, provided the petitioner met all other necessary requirements, including pre-deposit conditions.

FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

An assessment order dated 28.12.2023 was issued against the oner. The said order was carried in appeal by the petitioner before the appellate authority. The appeal was presented with the delay of 19 days. Inter alia, on account of such delay, the appeal was rejected. In those circumstances, by this writ petition, the order in original is challenged.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the appeal could not be presented in time on account of the ill-health of the managing director of the petitioner. He also submits that 25% pre-deposit was made.

3. Mr. C. Harsha Raj, learned Additional Government Pleader, accepts notice for the respondent. By referring to the order of rejection, learned Additional Government Pleader points out that there were other defects in the appeal.

4. On examining the order of the appellate authority, it is evident that the period of delay is only 19 days. The petitioner has placed on record a medical certificate issued by the Lakeside Medical Centre and Hospital. By taking into consideration the said facts and circumstances, it is just and appropriate that the appeal be received and disposed of on merits subject to the appeal being otherwise in order.

5. For reasons set out above, W.P.No.15543 of 2024 is disposed of without any order as to costs by directing the appellate authority to receive and dispose of the appeal on merits, without going into the question of limitation, provided the petitioner satisfies all other requirements including pre-deposit requirements in such regard. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.