Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
KRISHNAN RAMASAMY, J
Tvl.Asian Steels rep. by its Partner Noor Mohammed – Appellant
Versus
Deputy Commissioner (ST), (GST) – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to assessment order due to notice issues (Para 1 , 3) |
| 2. petitioner's request for delay condonation and reasons (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. court's review of reasons for delay and notice service (Para 6 , 7) |
| 4. court sets aside order; condones delay in appeal (Para 8) |
| 5. writ petition disposal and directives given (Para 9) |
ORDER :
Krishnan Ramasamy, J.
This writ petition has been filed challenging order of the First Respondent dated 21.02.2025 and quash the same as illegal and direct the first respondent to take the appeal filed by the petitioner on record and decide it on merits and in accordance with law.
2. Ms. Amirthapoonkodi Dinakaran, learned Government Advocate (Taxes) takes notice on behalf of the Respondents. By consent of the parties, the main writ petition is taken up for disposal at the admission stage itself.
3. The learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that initially the 2nd respondent issued a show cause notice dated 18.12.2023 to the petitioner by uploading the same in the GST portal, without serving the physical copy of the same to the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner failed to submit its reply. Subsequently, the 1st respondent passed the assess
The court ruled that lack of physical notice justifies delay in filing an appeal, emphasizing procedural fairness and genuine reasons for delay.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
