Thulasi Fabric,petitioner-assessee,challenged the order dated 20.03.2025 in Form GST APL 02, whereby the Deputy Commissioner (CT), acting for the second respondent, rejected the appeal filed on 10.11.2023 for the assessment year 2017-18. The appeal was dismissed solely on the ground that the petitioner failed to provide a proper explanation for the delay.

Understand the complete process and tax nuances of GST refunds, Click here

The petitioner counsel stated that the petitioner did not take part in the proceedings before the first respondent, which resulted in the order dated 10.11.2023 for the tax period 2017–18. An appeal was filed against this order before the second respondent, but it was dismissed due to lack of proper explanation for the delay.

Justice C.Saravanan after hearing the submissions of the petitioner counsel and the Government Advocate for the respondents, observed that the appeal had been dismissed solely on the ground of delay without a proper explanation, which warranted interference.

It further noted that the petitioner had already paid the disputed tax and the issue pertained only to a delay in payment. The question of whether the petitioner was liable to pay interest under the Act could be decided in the appeal proceedings.

Accordingly, the Court set aside the impugned order passed by the second respondent and restored the appeal for fresh consideration. It directed the second respondent to decide the appeal on merits and in accordance with law. The writ petition was accordingly disposed of.

Complete practical guide to Drafting Commercial Contracts, Click Here

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