Case Law Details
Auto Mark Private Limited Vs Commissioner (Madras High Court)
In Auto Mark Private Limited Vs Commissioner, the Madras High Court addressed a 73-day delay in the filing of an appeal by the petitioner. The delay occurred because GST notices and communications were sent to the petitioner’s former consultant, leaving the petitioner unaware of the orders passed. Consequently, the petitioner missed the deadline to file a reply and request a hearing. When the appeal was eventually filed, the respondents had not considered the delay. The petitioner argued that the delay was genuine and requested the court to condone it. The respondents maintained that notices were properly sent and the petitioner failed to act within the timeframe. After reviewing the case, the Court found the petitioner’s reasons credible and condoned the 73-day delay. The Court directed the appellate authority to accept the appeal and to issue a decision on its merits, ensuring that the petitioner would have an opportunity to present their case. No costs were imposed, and the miscellaneous petitions were also closed.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
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.
Author Bio
