Case Laws
Acts
Notifications
Circulars
Classification
Forms
Manuals
Articles
News
D. Forum
Highlights
Notes
🚨 Important Update for Our Users
We are transitioning to our new and improved portal - www.taxtmi.com - for a better experience.
⚠️ This portal will be discontinued on 31-July-2025 at 23:59:59
⏳ Loading countdown...
If you encounter any issues or problems while using the new portal,
please let us know
via our feedback form
, with specific details, so we can address them promptly.
Home
2025 (5) TMI 2140 - HC - GSTRejection of appeal filed by the petitioner on the ground of time limitation - appeal filed with a delay of 192 days - HELD THAT - Considering the arguments made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate for the respondents as well as the fact that the delay has occurred only due to ill-health of the Proprietor of the petitioner s concern this Court is of the view that the petitioner has demonstrated reasonable cause for the delay. Therefore the Court is inclined to condone the delay of 192 days in filing the appeal. The delay of 192 days in filing the appeal before the second respondent is condoned and the order of the appellate authority/second respondent is hereby set aside - Petition allowed.
The Madras High Court, through Justice Vivek Kumar Singh, allowed the writ petition challenging the ex-parte assessment order dated 20.05.2024 and the subsequent order dated 08.04.2025 rejecting the petitioner's appeal due to delay. The petitioner, a manufacturer of wooden products, failed to attend the assessment hearing due to reliance on a part-time accountant and lack of GST knowledge. The appeal was delayed by 192 days, attributed to the ill-health of the Proprietor. The Court held that the petitioner demonstrated "reasonable cause for the delay" and accordingly "condoned the delay of 192 days." The appellate authority's order was set aside, and the second respondent was directed to consider the appeal "without reference to the period of limitation" and dispose of it "on merits and in accordance with law," after providing an opportunity of hearing. No costs were imposed.
|