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

GST Appeal Filed with 150-Day Delay: Madras HC Condones Delay Subject to Additional 5% Deposit with 10% [Read Order]

The court found the petitioner’s explanation for the delay to be bona fide. The Court accordingly set aside the rejection order and condoned the delay, subject to the payment of an additional 5% of the disputed tax.

GST Appeal - Madras HC - taxscan
X

GST Appeal - Madras HC - taxscan

The Madras High Court has condoneD a 150-day delay in filing an appeal under the Goods and Services Tax (GST) Act, accepting the assessee’s medical grounds as genuine subject to the payment of an additional 5% of the disputed tax along with the 10% pre-deposit already paid.

However, the Court imposed an additional condition that the petitioner must deposit 5% of the disputed tax amount, over and above the statutory 10% pre-deposit, for the appeal to be entertained.

The petitioner, Simon Sagayaraju, proprietor of Tvl. Euphoria Green Technologies, had challenged an assessment order dated 15 April 2024 passed under Section 73 of the CGST/TNGST Act for the financial year 2018-19.

He tried to file an appeal on 12 December 2024, but due to severe medical issues, the appeal was delayed by 150 days. Since the delay exceeded the condonable limit, the appellate authority rejected the appeal on 25 April 2025 solely on grounds of limitation.

Before the High Court, the petitioner submitted that the delay was caused by unavoidable medical reasons and that he had already deposited 10% of the disputed tax amount while filing the appeal. He also expressed readiness to deposit an additional 5% as a condition for condoning the delay.

The State, represented by the Government Advocate, did not object to condoning the delay but requested the Court to impose suitable terms.

GST READY RECKONER: Complete Topic wise Circulars, Instructions & Guidelines Click here

Justice Krishnan Ramasamy found the petitioner’s explanation for the delay to be bona fide. The Court accordingly set aside the rejection order and condoned the delay, subject to the payment of an additional 5% of the disputed tax.

The Court directed the appellate authority to admit the appeal and dispose of it on merits, in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

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

Simon Sagayaraju vs Assistant Commissioner
CITATION :  2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1793Case Number :  W.P.No.31866 of 2025Date of Judgement :  28 August 2025Coram :  E KRISHNAN RAMASAMYCounsel of Appellant :  V.Srinithi , N.V.BalajiCounsel Of Respondent :  V.Prasanth Kiran

Next Story

Related Stories

All Rights Reserved. Copyright @2019