Case Law Details
Sas Hotels And Enterprises Limited Vs Deputy Commercial Tax Officer (Madras High Court)
Madras High Court has intervened in a tax dispute involving Sas Hotels And Enterprises Limited, setting aside an order that rejected the company’s appeal due to a 58-day delay. The court, acknowledging the petitioner’s reasons for the delay, has allowed the appeal to be taken on record, subject to an additional pre-deposit.
The writ petition challenged three orders: an assessment order dated April 27, 2024; a rectification rejection order dated October 21, 2024; and an appeal rejection order dated April 25, 2025, passed by the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer.
The petitioner’s counsel stated that a show cause notice was issued on December 28, 2023, to which a detailed reply was submitted on March 28, 2024. However, an assessment order was passed without considering this reply. The petitioner subsequently filed a rectification application, which was dismissed. Following this, an appeal was filed, but it was delayed by 58 days due to the pendency of the rectification application. The appellate authority rejected the appeal solely on grounds of limitation, as the delay exceeded the condonable period.
Sas Hotels had already paid a 10% statutory pre-deposit with their original appeal and offered to pay an additional 5% of the disputed tax amount.
The High Court accepted the petitioner’s explanation that the delay was genuine, stemming from the rectification application’s pendency. Consequently, the court set aside the appeal rejection order and condoned the 58-day delay. The petitioner is now directed to pay an additional 5% of the disputed tax amount to the respondents. Upon this payment, the appellate authority is mandated to take the appeal on record and dispose of it on its merits, providing ample opportunity to Sas Hotels.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned assessment order dated 27.04.2024, rectification rejection order dated 21.10.2024 and the appeal rejection order dated 25.04.2025 passed by the respondents.
2. Mr. C.Harsha Raj, learned Special Government Pleader, takes notice on behalf of the respondents. By consent of the parties, the main writ petitions are taken up for disposal at the admission stage itself.
3 The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in this case, initially, the show cause notice was issued by the respondent on 28.12.2023, for which a detailed reply was filed by the petitioner on 28.03.2024. However, without considering the said reply, a non-speaking assessment order dated 27.04.2024 came to be passed by the respondent. Aggrieved over the said assessment order, the rectification application came to be filed by the petitioner, however, the same was dismissed vide order dated 21.10.2024. Thereafter, the appeal against the aforesaid assessment order was preferred by the petitioner. However, due to the pendency of the aforesaid rectification application, there was a delay of 58 days in filing the appeal. Since the said delay is beyond the condonable period, the appeal was rejected by the respondent, vide impugned rejection order dated 25.04.2025, on the aspect of limitation. Hence, this writ petition has been filed.
4. Further, he would submit that the petitioner had already paid 10% towards statutory pre-deposit while filing the appeal and now, he is willing to pay additional pre-deposit of 5% of disputed tax amount. Therefore, he requests this Court to condone the delay in filing the appeal.
5. On the other hand, the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents would submit that in this case, after the passing of impugned assessment order, a rectification application was filed by the petitioner. However, a rectification application will be entertained only when there is any error apparent on the face of the assessment order and hence, the said application was rejected by the respondent vide order dated 21.10.2024. Thereafter, the appeal, which was filed by the petitioner with a delay of 58 days, was also rejected on the aspect of limitation vide order dated 25.04.2025. Hence, he would contend that the said delay has occurred only due to the fault on the part of the petitioner and requests this Court to pass appropriate orders.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents and also perused the materials available on record.
7. In the case on hand, the assessment order came to be passed on 27.04.2024. Aggrieved over the same, the appeal was belatedly preferred by the petitioner, i.e., with a delay of 58 days. Since the delay was beyond the condonnable period, the said appeal was rejected by the respondent vide impugned order dated 25.04.2025. According to the petitioner, they had filed the rectification application against the assessment order and the same was dismissed vide order dated 21.10.2024. Hence, due to the pendency of rectification application, they were unable to file the appeal within time.
8. The above reason assigned by the petitioner, for the delay in filing the appeal against the assessment order, appears to be genuine. In such view of the matter, this Court is inclined to condone 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 statutory pre-deposit while filing the appeal, considering the delay of 58 days, this Court directs the petitioner to pay additional 5% of the disputed tax amount to the respondents, as agreed by the petitioner. Accordingly, this Court passes the following order:-
(i) Accordingly, the appeal rejection order dated 25.04.2025 passed by the 2nd respondent is set aside and the delay of 58 days in filing the appeal before the 2nd respondent is hereby condoned, subject to the payment of additional 5% of the disputed tax amount by the petitioner to the respondents.
(ii) Upon payment of the said amount, the 2nd respondent is directed to take the appeal on record and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law, after providing 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.
Author Bio
