Taxpayer Pursued Rectification Petition First: Madras HC Condones 108 Days Delay in Filing Appeal [Read Order]

In a recent ruling, the Madras High Court condoned a delay of 108 days in filing an appeal under the TNGST Act, 2017, after observing that the taxpayer had first pursued a rectification petition before approaching the appellate authority.

Tvl. Pasura Crop Care Private Limited, the petitioner, filed a writ petition challenging the order dated 13 March 2025 passed by the Deputy Commissioner (CT)(Appeal)(GST), Salem, who had dismissed its appeal on the ground of limitation.

The petitioner was aggrieved by an assessment order dated 14 August 2024 issued by the State Tax Officer, demanding tax, penalty, and interest for the assessment year 2019-2020. Instead of filing an appeal immediately, the petitioner filed a rectification petition under Section161 of the TNGST Act, which was rejected on 22 February 2025.

Read More: Online Money Gamers Watch Out! Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Bill, 2025 assented by President

The petitioner then filed an appeal on 3 March 2025, which was delayed by 108 days, and the same was dismissed as time-barred.

The petitioner’s counsel argued that the delay was not deliberate but occurred because the company was under a bona fide belief that the issue could be resolved by way of rectification. He submitted that the petitioner had already deposited 10% of the disputed tax at the time of filing the appeal and was ready to deposit a further 5% as a condition for condonation of delay.

The respondent’s counsel argued that nothing prevented the petitioner from filing an appeal immediately after the assessment order and that the delay arose only because the petitioner wrongly opted to pursue rectification. They fairly submitted that the delay could be condoned on terms.

The single-judge comprising Justice Krishnan Ramasamy observed that while technically the petitioner should have filed an appeal within time, the explanation given that the rectification petition was pursued first appeared to be genuine.

The court explained that justice would be met if the delay was condoned, provided that the petitioner complied with conditions. It pointed out that the petitioner had already deposited part of the disputed tax and expressed willingness to deposit more.

Based on these findings, the High Court set aside the appellate order dated 13 March 2025, condoned the delay of 108 days in filing the appeal, and directed the petitioner to pay an additional 5% of the disputed tax within four weeks.

On such a payment, the appellate authority was directed to take the appeal on record and dispose of it on merits in accordance with law, after giving the petitioner an opportunity of hearing. The writ petition was disposed of with these directions, and the connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.

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