Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 37229

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
W.M.P(MD)Nos.9060 & 9063 of 2026

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.N.Sudalai Muthu
For the Respondents: Mr.R.Suresh Kumar Additional Government Pleader

Court can condone delay in GST appeal filing within limits despite no application, prioritizing merits over procedure.

Headnote:Under Section 107 of the CGST Act, appeals must be filed within three months, with the Appellate Authority empowered to condone delays up to one month. The petitioner filed a statutory appeal within the condonable period but omitted to submit a condonation application, resulting in rejection by the Appellate Authority via Form GST APL-02 dated 27.03.2026. The court found the omission to be an inadvertent error attributable to the assessee, with the delay falling within permissible limits. The core issue was whether the rejection for non-filing of condonation application was justified when the delay was condonable. The court observed that remanding for a fresh application would be inefficient given the minimal delay and affidavit evidence of error, emphasizing substantial justice over procedural technicalities. The impugned order was set aside, delay condoned by the court, and the appeal restored for disposal on merits.

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 application for condonation of delay and therefore, the appeal was rejected by the Appellate Authority.

5. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents would submit that, even if an opportunity is to be granted, the petitioner may be directed to file an application for condonation of delay.

6. I have considered the rival submissions made on either side and perused the material records of the case.

7. It can be seen from the affidavit filed in support of the application that it was an error on the part of the assessee in not filing an application for condonation of delay. In any event, the delay is within the condonable limit.

8. I am of the view that, instead of directing the assessee to file an application for condonation of delay, considering the nature of the delay, the same can be condoned and the appeal can be taken up for consideration on merits.

9. In view thereof, the writ petition is ordered on the following terms:-

i. The impugned order dated 27.03.2026 shall stand set aside.

ii. The error on the part of the petitioner in not filing an application for condonation of delay is condoned by this Court and considering the number of days of delay, the delay shall stand condoned.

iii.The appeal shall be treated as having the delay condoned, shall be taken on file and shall be considered by the Appellate Authority on its own merits and disposed of in accordance with law.

No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 37229

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASD. Bharatha Chakravarthy, JTvl. Teeam Score, Represented by its Partner Karur Kandasamy Ranjith – AppellantVersusState Tax Officer, Karur - 4 Assessment Circle – RespondentW.M.P(MD)Nos.9060 & 9063 of 2026

Court can condone delay in GST appeal filing within limits despite no application, prioritizing merits over procedure.

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
W.M.P(MD)Nos.9060 & 9063 of 2026