Top
Begin typing your search above and press return to search.

Delayed Service of GST Notice Hardcopy: Madras HC Condones 142-Day Delay and Allows Tax Appeal [Read Order]

Madras High Court condoned a 142-day delay in GST appeal filing, citing delayed hardcopy service of the demand notice and the petitioner's health issues as justified grounds

Delayed Service of GST Notice Hardcopy: Madras HC Condones 142-Day Delay and Allows Tax Appeal [Read Order]
X

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has condoned a 142-day delay in filing a GST appeal, due to a delay in receiving the physical demand notice, despite it being uploaded online earlier. Also Read:Case Digest: Condonation of Delay under GST ActThe petitioner, Sivasubramanian Laxmanan, is a sole proprietorship firm registered under the Goods and Services Tax (GST) regime....


The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has condoned a 142-day delay in filing a GST appeal, due to a delay in receiving the physical demand notice, despite it being uploaded online earlier.

The petitioner, Sivasubramanian Laxmanan, is a sole proprietorship firm registered under the Goods and Services Tax (GST) regime. The petitioner approached the High Court against the rejection of his appeal by the GST authorities on the grounds of delay.

Stay Updated with the Latest Audit Report Formats & Audit Trials Requirements! Click here 

The petitioner contended that the demand notice was uploaded on the GST portal, but a physical copy of the notice was served only on April 16, 2024. Due to this delayed service, the petitioner filed an appeal for a delay of 142 days. The appeal was dismissed by the appellate authority.

The petitioner argued about his health-related issues, that is, about his acute lumbar disc prolapse, which was the sole reason for his inability to respond to the initial show cause and demand notices for the tax period 2019–2020.

The High Court Justice Vivek Kumar Singh noted that the petitioner has demonstrated reasonable cause for the delay, especially since the demand notice was not immediately communicated in physical form.

Consequently, the Court condoned the delay, set aside the order rejecting the appeal, and directed the appellate authority to hear the matter afresh on merits, after affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing.

The petitioner was represented by J.William Christopher, while R.Suresh Kumar represented the respondent.

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

Next Story

Related Stories

All Rights Reserved. Copyright @2019