GST Appeal filing Delayed by 58 Days due to Pendency in Rectification Application: Madras HC Grants Relief [Read Order]
The court found the explanation for the delay to be genuine and held that a party’s bonafide reliance on pending rectification proceedings is a valid ground for delay
![GST Appeal filing Delayed by 58 Days due to Pendency in Rectification Application: Madras HC Grants Relief [Read Order] GST Appeal filing Delayed by 58 Days due to Pendency in Rectification Application: Madras HC Grants Relief [Read Order]](https://images.taxscan.in/h-upload/2025/06/19/2050617-gst-appeal-filing-gst-appeal-pendency-in-rectification-application-taxscan.webp)
The Madras High Court has condoned a 58-day delay in filing a GST ( Goods and Services Tax ) appeal, caused by the pendency of a rectification application, and directed the authorities to hear the appeal on merits.
The petitioner, Sas Hotels And Enterprises Limited had initially responded to a show cause notice issued on 28.12.2023 and filed a detailed reply on 28.03.2024. However, without considering this response, the assessing officer passed a non-speaking order on 27.04.2024.
Seeking redress, the petitioner filed a rectification application under Section 161, which was rejected on 21.10.2024. Thereafter, an appeal was filed against the original assessment order, but it was delayed by 58 days and was consequently dismissed by the department on 25.04.2025 for exceeding the condonable period.
Also Read:Shipping Bills’ Forgery: Madras HC Says Informant Cannot Appeal Before Tribunal Without Being a Party to Proceedings [Read Order]
Comprehensive Guide of Law and Procedure for Filing of Income Tax Appeals, Click Here
The petitioner explained that the delay was unintentional and caused solely due to the pendency of the rectification application. They had already paid the mandatory 10% pre-deposit while filing the appeal and offered to deposit an additional 5% as a condition for condonation of delay.
JusticeKrishnan Ramasamy, after examining the facts, found the explanation for the delay to be genuine and held that a party’s bonafide reliance on pending rectification proceedings is a valid ground for delay.
Observing that justice would be served by allowing the appeal to be heard, the Court set aside the rejection order and condoned the delay, subject to the petitioner depositing an additional 5% of the disputed tax amount. The Deputy Commissioner was directed to admit the appeal and dispose of it on merits after granting an opportunity of hearing.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates