Return Filed via Part-Time Accountant: Madras HC Condones 78-Day Delay Due to Taxpayer's Unawareness of GST Portal Notices [Read Order]

In a recent ruling, the Madras High Court condoned a 78-day delay in filing an appeal before the GST appellate authority, citing the petitioner’s lack of awareness about notices uploaded on the GST portal and the returns filed by a part-time accountant.

Ponnusamy, the petitioner is a taxpayer who filed returns through a part-time accountant and did not have direct access to the GST portal. The State Tax Officer issued a notice on 10.11.2020, citing mismatches between GSTR-3B and GSTR-7 and proposing a tax levy of Rs. 21,141 under both Central Goods and Service Tax (CGST) and State Goods and Service Tax (SGST). As the petitioner was unaware of the notice, he failed to respond.

Small Business, Big Funding Opportunities - Click here to Register

Another notice in Form GST DRC-01 was issued on 20.06.2022, confirming the proposed tax liability. Without providing the petitioner a personal hearing, the State Tax Officer issued a final order on 18.08.2023, imposing penalties and interest in addition to the tax liability.

The petitioner filed an appeal before the appellate authority on 25.02.2024 but with a 78-day delay beyond the prescribed time limit under Section 107 of the GST Act. The appellate authority rejected the appeal on 04.07.2024 due to the delay.

The petitioner challenged this decision in the Madras High Court, arguing that the delay was caused by his lack of knowledge about the uploaded notices, as he relied on a part-time accountant to manage filings. The petitioner’s counsel explained the need to prioritize substantial justice over procedural lapses.

The Government Advocate representing the respondents did not object to condoning the delay.

Small Business, Big Funding Opportunities - Click here to Register

Justice Krishnan Ramasamy observed that the petitioner’s unawareness of the impugned order justified the delay and pinpointed the principle that substantial justice should outweigh technical considerations.

The court set aside the appellate authority’s rejection order and directed it to accept the appeal and decide it on merits after providing the petitioner an opportunity to present his case. The writ petition was disposed of, and the miscellaneous petition was closed without costs.

To Read the full text of the Order CLICK HERE

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates