Case Law Details
Tvl.Deepa Traders Vs Deputy Commissioner (ST) (Madras High Court)
The writ petition challenged the demand order dated 08.02.2023 passed by the second respondent and the order dated 25.04.2024 passed by the first respondent rejecting the petitioner’s appeal against the demand order.
The petitioner, a wholesale dealer in painting products, submitted that it had been regularly filing monthly returns. According to the petitioner, due to ambiguity in the procedure adopted after the implementation of GST, it failed to notice the show cause notice dated 19.12.2022 issued by the second respondent pointing out discrepancies in GSTR returns. Thereafter, the demand order dated 08.02.2023 was passed.
The petitioner stated that it became aware of the demand order only when the respondents initiated coercive recovery proceedings. It immediately filed an appeal before the first respondent, but the appeal was filed with a delay of 285 days. The appellate authority dismissed the appeal solely on the ground of delay. The petitioner contended that the delay was neither wilful nor wanton but occurred due to bona fide reasons and sought quashing of both the demand order and the appellate order.
The respondents submitted that if the Court found sufficient and reasonable cause for the delay, appropriate orders could be passed.
After considering the submissions of both parties, the High Court observed that the notices had been uploaded on the portal but no hard copy had been served on the petitioner. The Court held that the petitioner had shown reasonable cause for the delay and was therefore entitled to condonation of the 285-day delay in filing the appeal.
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the writ petition, condoned the delay of 285 days, and set aside the order of the appellate authority. The first respondent was directed to treat the appeal as having been filed within time and dispose of it on merits and in accordance with law after affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing. No order as to costs was passed, and the connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
This writ petition challenges the impugned order of demand passed by the second respondent dated 08.02.2023 and the order of the first respondent dated 25.04.2024 rejecting the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of demand.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner firm runs a wholesale business of selling of painting and he has been regular in filing the monthly returns. However, due to ambiguity in the procedure adopted after the GST enactment, he failed to note the show cause notice dated 19.12.2022 issued by the second respondent showing some discrepancies in GSTR returns. Subsequent thereto, the impugned demand order came to be issued on 08.02.2023 by the second respondent. The petitioner came to know of the demand order only after the respondents initiated coercive steps to recover the demand amount and immediately thereafter, the petitioner filed an appeal before the first respondent, however, with a delay of 285 days. The appeal was dismissed on the ground of delay. The learned counsel submits that the delay is neither wilful nor wanton but due to bonafide reasons and hence, prays for quashing of the impugned orders of the first and second respondent.
3. Per contra, the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents would fairly submit that if the Court finds sufficient and reasonable cause for the delay, appropriate orders may be passed.
4. Considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents and also considering the fact that the notices were uploaded in the portal, but no hard copy was served on the petitioner, this Court feels that reasonable cause has been shown by the petitioner for the delay. Therefore, this Court is inclined to condone the delay of 285 days in filing the appeal.
5. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The delay of 285 days in filing the appeal before the first respondent is condoned and the order of the appellate authority/first respondent is set aside. The first respondent is hereby directed to take up the appeal as if it is filed in time and dispose of the same on merits and in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
Author Bio
