Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
D. Bharatha Chakravarthy, J
Tvl. Teeam Score, Represented by its Partner Karur Kandasamy Ranjith – Appellant
Versus
State Tax Officer, Karur - 4 Assessment Circle – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenges rejection of gst appeal for delay. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. s.107 limits appeal to 3 months + 1 month condonation. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. respondents suggest fresh condonation application. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. court condones delay due to inadvertent error. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 5. impugned order set aside, appeal restored on merits. (Para 9) |
ORDER
The writ petition is filed challenging the impugned order dated
27.03.2026 and to quash the same and consequently, direct the second respondent to restore the statutory appeal dated 16.03.2026, condone the delay and dispose of the said appeal.
2. Heard Mr.N.Sudalai Muthu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.R.Suresh Kumar, learned Additional Government Pleader, who takes notice on behalf of the respondents.
3. Upon hearing the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and perusing the material records of the case, it can be seen that, as per Section 107, an appeal has to be filed within a period of three months. Additionally, the Appellate Authority has the power to condone a delay of up to one month.
4. The filing of the present appeal falls within the condonable period of one month. However, the petitioner did not file an appl
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
