2025 (6) TMI 518 - HC - GST

Violation of principles of natural justice - ex parte impugned summary order was passed - condonation of delay in filing appeal - sufficient cause present or not - HELD THAT - In the case on hand the ex parte summary order came to be passed on 25.07.2023. Aggrieved over the same an appeal was belatedly preferred by the petitioner on 04.09.2024 i.e. with a delay of 285 days. Since the delay was beyond the condonable period the said appeal was rejected by the first respondent vide impugned order dated 04.11.2024. According to the petitioner since the summary order was passed in ex parte they remained unaware of the said order and hence they were unable to file the appeal within time. The above reason assigned by the petitioner for the delay in filing the appeal against the summary 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 summary order on terms. The impugned order dated 04.11.2024 is set aside and the delay of 285 days in filing the appeal against the summary order is hereby condoned subject to the payment of additional 5% of the disputed tax amount by the petitioner to the respondent-Department within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order - Petition disposed off.

Summary

The Madras High Court, through Justice Krishnan Ramasamy, addressed a writ petition challenging the rejection order dated 04.11.2024 by the 1st respondent, which dismissed the petitioner's appeal as barred by limitation. The appeal was filed with a 285-day delay following an ex parte summary order dated 25.07.2023, of which the petitioner claimed unawareness.The Court found the petitioner's explanation for the delay-unawareness due to the ex parte nature of the order-to be "genuine" and thus inclined to condone the delay "on terms." Although the petitioner had already paid 10% of the disputed tax as pre-deposit, the Court directed an additional 5% pre-deposit within four weeks. The Court set aside the impugned rejection order and ordered the 1st respondent to admit the appeal and decide it on merits "after providing sufficient opportunity to the petitioner."In sum, the Court held: - The delay of 285 days in filing the appeal is condoned subject to an additional pre-deposit. - The impugned order dated 04.11.2024 is set aside. - The appellate authority must take the appeal on record and decide it expeditiously and in accordance with law. The writ petition was disposed of accordingly, with no costs.