The Madras High Court has condoned a 90-day delay in filing an appeal against a GST assessment order, subject to the petitioner paying an additional 10% of the disputed tax amount as a pre-deposit. The court ruled that the grounds cited by the petitioner for delay in filing GST appeal was invalid.
The petitioner, AVM HI FI Stationeries, represented by its proprietor V. Syed Ismail, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the assessment order dated 05.06.2024 and the rejection order dated 31.01.2025 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, GST Appeal Chennai.
The petitioner sought a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash both orders and requested the benefit of a Press Release dated 04.05.2018 issued by the Ministry of Finance.
Read More: No GST Council Meeting in 2025…yet! Behind the Delay and Beyond the Horizon
The assessment order was passed on 05.06.2024. The petitioner filed an appeal on 04.01.2025, with a delay of 90 days, which was rejected by the Appellate Authority as the delay exceeded the condonable period.
Your Ultimate Guide to GST in the Real Estate Sector! Click here
The petitioner contended that the delay occurred due to extensive legal consultations and exploring options with a thorough review of facts before deciding to pursue the appeal.
The respondent, represented by Additional Government Pleader argued that the delay was the petitioner’s fault and that no valid reason was provided. The rejection order dated 31.01.2025 was a legally valid order.
A bench comprising Justice Krishnan Ramasamy observed that the grounds for the delay in filing appeal lacked merit. The court observed that the petitioner paid 10% pre-deposit during the appeal filing.
The court condoned the 90-day delay in the interest of justice, subject to the petitioner paying an additional 10% of the disputed tax amount. This 10% of disputed amount to be paid in addition to the 10% pre-deposit already paid during the appeal filing.
The court set aside the rejection order dated 31.01.2025 and directed the Appellate Authority to take the appeal on record upon payment of the additional pre-deposit. The Court directed the authority to pass orders on merits after providing the petitioner sufficient opportunity for a hearing.
The writ petition was disposed of with no costs, and the connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
