Delay In Filing Appeal, Notices Uploaded On GST Portal , Copy Not Served: Madras High Court Condones Delay
The Madras High Court has condoned the delay of 285 days in filing the appeal on the grounds that the notices were uploaded on the GST portal but no hard copy was served on the assessee.The bench of Justice Krishnan Ramasamy has observed that the delay was not wilful but due to bona fide reasons, and a reasonable cause has been shown by the petitioner for the delay. The petitioner/assessee is...
The Madras High Court has condoned the delay of 285 days in filing the appeal on the grounds that the notices were uploaded on the GST portal but no hard copy was served on the assessee.
The bench of Justice Krishnan Ramasamy has observed that the delay was not wilful but due to bona fide reasons, and a reasonable cause has been shown by the petitioner for the delay.
The petitioner/assessee is a firm that runs a wholesale business selling paintings, and he has been regular in filing the monthly returns. However, due to ambiguity in the procedure adopted after the GST enactment, he failed to note the show cause notice issued by the second respondent showing some discrepancies in GSTR returns.
The demand order was issued on February 8, 2023, by the respondent department. The petitioner learned of the demand order only after the respondents initiated coercive steps to recover the demand amount. Immediately after, the petitioner filed an appeal before the respondent department, however, with a delay of 285 days. The appeal was dismissed on the grounds of delay.
The assessee contended that the delay is neither wilful nor wanton but due to bona fide reasons and, hence, prayed for the quashing of the impugned orders of the respondent department.
The court allowed the petition and condoned the delay of 285 days in filing the appeal before the first respondent.
The court set aside the order of the appellate authority and directed the department to take up the appeal as if it were filed in time and disposed of on merit and in accordance with law, after affording the petitioner an opportunity to hear it.
Counsel For Petitioner: P.Suresh Babu
Counsel For Respondent: G.Nanmaran
Case Title: Tvl.Deepa Traders Versus The Deputy Commissioner (ST)
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 329
Case No.: W.P.No.19277 of 2024 and WMP Nos.21143 and 21144 of 2024