Case Law Details
Tvl. SK Knit Apparels Vs Deputy Commissioner (ST)-GST Appeal (Madras High Court)
Summary: The petitioner sought condonation of a delay of 418 days in filing a writ appeal against an order dated 09.09.2024 passed by a learned Single Judge of the Madras High Court. The impugned order was common to five writ petitions and, in the present matter, related to a challenge to the first appellate order for the assessment period 2017–18.
The reasons for the delay were set out in the petition dated 26.11.2025. In substance, the petitioner stated that the partner handling High Court matters had suffered a bereavement, was attending to a hospitalised father-in-law, and was under the belief that an appeal could be filed before the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT). These circumstances were cited as the cause for the delay.
The Court examined each reason. With respect to the bereavement and hospitalisation, the Court found the explanations to be vague, noting that no material particulars or supporting documents, such as medical records, were produced. Even upon specific query, counsel for the petitioner was unable to furnish details. Consequently, the Court held that these reasons were not credible.
Regarding the contention that an appeal could be filed before the GSTAT, the Court observed that the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 provides for a second appeal under Section 112. However, since the Tribunal had not been constituted, writ petitions were being filed against first appellate orders. The petitioner had itself filed the writ petition earlier on this basis, which was entertained and decided by the learned Single Judge. The Court held that this demonstrated the petitioner’s awareness of the non-constitution of the Tribunal and the appropriate remedy before the High Court. Therefore, reliance on an alternate remedy before the GSTAT was found to be without merit.
The Court further noted that, having approached the High Court in time by filing the writ petition, the petitioner could not justify the filing of the writ appeal after an inordinate delay of 418 days. On this ground, the Court concluded that no sufficient cause had been shown to condone the delay.
Incidentally, the Court also referred to findings in the impugned order, where the learned Single Judge had examined the matter in detail and held that the petitioner’s GST registration itself was not credible. It was additionally noted that, despite holding registration, the petitioner had not filed returns under Section 39(8) of the Act. Even on merits, the Court found no compelling reason to interfere.
A notification dated 17.09.2025 granting extended time for filing appeals before the Tribunal was placed before the Court. The Court held that the notification was not relevant to the present case, as the issue under consideration was limited to whether sufficient cause existed for condoning the delay.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
This is a petition seeking condonation of delay of 418 days in filing the Writ Appeal challenging the order of the learned single Judge dated 09.09.2024.
2. The aforesaid order has been passed in common in respect of 5 Writ Petitions and the present petition relates to a challenge to the first appellate order for the period 2017-18.
3. The reasons for condonation are set out at paragraphs 4 and 5 of the petition dated 26.11.2025. In summary, the contents of the aforesaid paragraphs are that the partner of the firm, who was in charge of matters before the High Court, had suffered a bereavement, was taking care of his hospitalised father-in-law and was under the belief that an appeal could be filed before the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (in short ‘GSTAT’/’Tribunal’). These are the reasons as to why the delay had been occasioned.
4. As far as the first and second reasons are concerned, we find them vague as no material particulars in regard to the bereavement or the hospitalisation, including medical records have been produced. To a specific query, learned counsel for the petitioner is also unable to provide necessary particulars in support of these reasons. Hence, we do not find them credible.
5. As far as the third reason is concerned, the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (in short ‘Act’) provides for filing of a second appeal in terms of Section 112 of the Act. Since the Tribunal has not yet been constituted, Writ Petitions are being instituted as against orders passed in first appeal. In fact, the filing of the Writ Petition was itself occasioned since the GSTAT had not yet been constituted and hence, came to be entertained by the learned Judge, culminating in order dated 09.09.2024.
6. Having approached this Court by way of Writ Petition in time, the fact that the petitioner is aware of the non-constitution of the Tribunal is apparent. In such circumstances, we find no merit in the reference to the alternate remedy before the GSTAT.
7. The petitioner was well aware that the remedy as against the assessment would be before this Court and had hence filed the Writ Petition. There is no reason why the writ appeal was hence filed with such an enormous delay. For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any justification to entertain this Writ Appeal finding that no sufficient cause has been made for condonation of delay of 418 days.
8. Incidentally, the learned Judge has, in the impugned order, dealt with the matter in extenso, finding that the GST registration of the petitioner was itself not credible. This finding goes to the root of the matter. That apart, the petitioner, inspite of holding a registration, has not filed returns of income under Section 39(8) of the Act. In all, and even on merits, we find nothing compelling us to intervene.
9. Ramesh circulates a copy of Notification bearing S.O.4220(E) dated 17.09.2025, wherein time upto 30.06.2026 has been granted to the assessees to file appeals before the Tribunal, in respect of matters where the order sought to be appealed against is communicated before 01.04.2026 and within three months from the date on which such order is communicated to the assessee in respect of appeals in respect of orders communicated on or after 01.04.2026.
10. This Notification, is not relevant to the facts and circumstances of the present case as we are, now concerned solely with whether the petitioner has
11. The Miscellaneous Petition and the Writ Appeal in SR Stage are dismissed. No costs.
Author Bio
