Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 78801
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
KRISHNAN RAMASAMY, J
Sri Moogambigai Enterprises – Appellant
Versus
Deputy Commissioner of Appeals (ST) – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 26768 of 2025 | Writ Petition No. 12307 of 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Ms.Priscilla Swarnakumari
For the Respondents:M/s.Amirta Poonkodi Dinakaran Government Advocate (taxes)
Court allowed the appeal despite procedural delays, emphasizing the importance of fair opportunity for redressal under genuine circumstances.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Writ of Certiorari - Challenging the impugned appeal rejection and assessment orders - Delay in filing appeal was condoned due to the petitioner pursuing a rectification application. (Paras 2-6)
(B) Delay - Sufficient reason for the delay in appeal was found as the petitioner had been engaged in rectification before the relevant authority. The court directed the petitioner to pay an additional 10% statutory deposit for condoning the delay. (Paras 6)
Facts of the case:
Petitioner filed writ petitions against rejection of appeal and assessment orders by the tax authorities, emphasizing procedural missteps concerning notices and delays.
Findings of Court:
Due to genuine reason for delay, the court condoned the delay and directed the appeals to be heard without limitations, subject to a higher deposit requirement.
Issues: The primary issue was the allowance of the appeal despite the delay based on the circumstances provided by the petitioner concerning the rectification application timeline.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the genuine nature of the reasons behind the delay in filing the appeal, allowing for a more just resolution of the petitioner’s case.
Result: The delay is condoned, appeals to be heard without limitation after the required deposit.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. writ petitions filed against assessment and appeal rejection orders. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. court's observations on the reasons for appeal delay. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. decision to condone delay based on genuine reasons. (Para 6 , 7) |
COMMON ORDER
W.P.No.26768 of 2025 has been filed by the petitioner challenging the impugned appeal rejection order dated 20.03.2025 passed by the Appellate Authority/Deputy Commissioner of Appeals.
W.P.No.12307 of 2025 has been filed by the petitioner challenging the impugned assessment order dated 30.04.2024 passed by the Assessing Officer/The Assistant Commissioner.
2.Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was issued with the show cause notice dated 14.08.2023, pertaining to the Tax Period 2018-19. In response, the petitioner filed their reply on 29.04.2024. However, the Assessing Officer without considering the reply of the petitioner had confirmed the proposals made in the show cause notice vide impugned assessment order dated 30.04.2024. Aggreived over the same the petitioner filed a rectification application and the same was rejected by the Assessing Officer.
3.He would further submit that the petitioner thereafter preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority, by depositing 10% of the disputed tax demand in respect of the assessment period. However, the same was rejected on the ground of limitation since there was a delay of 135 days, beyond the condonable period in filing the appeal. Since the petitioner was pursuing the rectification application, the delay has occurred and hence, the learned counsel for the petitioner, prayed to condone the delay on any terms including any condition of additional pre-deposit and provide an opportunity to the petitioner to putforth their case by way of appeal.
4.Learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents would submit that if the Court feels it appropriate and it is a fit case for consideration, the delay may be condoned with any terms and appropriate orders may be passed to take the appeals on record.
5.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents and perused the materials available on record.
6.Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents, it is evident that since the petitioner was pursuing the rectification application, the delay has occurred in filing the appeal. Thus, this Court is of the view that the reason assigned by the petitioner for the delay in filing the appeal against the assessment order, appears to be genuine. For filing the appeal, the writ petitioner had already paid 10% of statutory pre-deposit. Since there occurred a delay, this Court is inclined to direct the petitioner to pay another 10% in addition to the 10% pre-deposit for condonation of delay. Accordingly, this Court pass the following orders:-
(i) The delay in filing the appeal against the assessment order dated 30.04.2024 is hereby condoned.
(ii)The Appellate Authority is directed to take the appeals on record without insisting upon the limitation aspect, subject to the payment of 10% of the disputed tax demand, in addition to 10% statutory pre-deposit, i.e totally 20% of the disputed tax amount in respect of the impugned assessment period and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law, after hearing the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible.
7.With the above directions, the writ petition in W.P.No.26768 of 2025 is disposed of. In view of the order passed in W.P.No.26768 of 2025, the writ petition in W.P.No.12307 of 2025 stands dismissed. There is no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
31-07-2025 rst Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes Neutral Citation:Yes/No To
1.Deputy Commissioner of Appeals (ST), Department of Commercial Taxes, Pitchards Road, Hasthampa
