Madras High Court
Tvl.Sri Hari Enterprises vs The Assistant Commissioner (St) (Fac) on 9 May, 2025
W.P No.17504 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 09.05.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE N.MALA
W.P No.17504 of 2025
and
W.M.P. Nos.19853 and 19856 of 2025
Tvl.Sri Hari Enterprises
rep. By its Proprietor Haridhama,
Krishnagiri By-pass Road,
Hosur – 635 109. ... Petitioner
vs
1.The Assistant Commissioner (ST) (FAC),
Hosur (North) II Circle, Hosur.
2.The Deputy Commissioner (CT) (Appeals),
Hosur.
3.HDFC Bank,
Plot No.42/2, KTR Tower,
Krishnagiri Bypass Road,
Hosur – 635 109. ... Respondents
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India
praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the
second respondent's Form GST APL-02 dated 04.04.2025 and quash
the same and direct the second respondent to grant opportunity to the
petitioner to rectify the defects in Appeal bearing
Page Nos.1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/05/2025 04:02:24 pm )
W.P No.17504 of 2025
ARN#AD331124010858B including by filing application for
condonation of delay and further direct the first respondent not to take
any coercive steps against the petitioner till then.
For Petitioner : Mr.Adithya Reddy
For Respondents : Mr.V.Prashanth Kiran,
Government Advocate
for R1 and R2
Mr.C.Mohan
and
Ms.A.Rexy Josephine Mary
for M/s.King and Patridge for R3
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed for the issuance of a writ of
certiorarified mandamus calling for the second respondent's order
dated 04.04.2025 and quash the same and further direct the second
respondent to grant opportunity to the petitioner to rectify the defects
in Appeal bearing ARN#AD331124010858B including by filing
application for condonation of delay and further direct the first
respondent not to take any coercive steps against the petitioner till
then.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/05/2025 04:02:24 pm )
2. The petitioner is engaged in the business of civil works
contracts and is a registered tax payer under the TNGST/CGST Act,
2017. While so, the first respondent issued a show cause notice dated
19.03.2024 under Section 74 of TNGST/CGST Act alleging certain
discrepancies in the returns filed for the financial year 2019-2020. The
petitioner submitted a detailed reply to the show cause notice on
09.04.2024. On 25.07.2024, an order was passed confirming the
discrepancies and raising the demand for tax, penalty and interest.
According to the petitioner, the proposal mentioned in the notice dated
19.03.2024 was confirmed without properly considering the reply
submitted by the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner preferred an
appeal under Section 107 of the GST Act on 07.11.2024, which was
within the prescribed 120 days limitation period. While preferring the
appeal, the petitioner erroneously failed to file condonation of delay
application along with the appeal. The second respondent vide
impugned order dated 04.04.2025, rejected the petitioner's appeal on
the ground that there was a delay in submission of the appeal.
According to the petitioner, the appeal was filed well within the
limitation period under Section 107 of GST Act. It is the case of the
petitioner that the appeal was filed beyond 90 days but within the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/05/2025 04:02:24 pm )
condonable period of 30 days under the TNGST Act. The appeal could
not be filed within 90 days for medical reasons. After dismissal of the
appeal by the first respondent, the second respondent proceeded to
take coercive steps against the petitioner for recovery of demand in
terms of Section 112 of the Act. The petitioner being left with no other
remedy has approached this Court with the aforesaid prayer.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner relying on the judgment of
this Court in Indian Potash Ltd., Vs. Deputy Commissioner (ST)
GST Appeal stated that the appeal was rejected on technical grounds
and therefore, the impugned order deserves to be set aside.
4. I heard both sides and perused the materials placed on
record.
5.Admittedly, the petitioner filed the appeal beyond 90 days but
within a condonable period of 30 days under Section 107 of the GST
Act. It appears that the petitioner erroneously filed the appeal without
enclosing the Condonation of Delay application. Therefore, the second
respondent rejected the petitioner's appeal on the ground that the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/05/2025 04:02:24 pm )
appeal was filed belatedly. This Court in Indian Potash Ltd., Vs.
Deputy Commissioner (ST) GST Appeal held that an appeal
cannot be rejected on the ground of technical defects. No doubt there
is procedural irregularity in filing the appeal but such procedural
irregularity should not defeat the petitioner's right. As it is well settled
that procedure is handmaid of justice, I am of the view that the
petitioner should be given an opportunity to rectify the defect.
6. In the light of the above discussion, the impugned order is set
aside. The petitioner is directed to represent the appeal along with
condonation of delay application and the second respondent on re-
presentation of appeal, along with condonation of delay application,
shall entertain the same by calculating the limitation from the date of
filing of original appeal.
7. The writ petition is disposed of with the above directions. No
costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
09.05.2025
Index : Yes / No
Neutral Citation : Yes / No
mmi/gpa
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/05/2025 04:02:24 pm )
To
1.The Assistant Commissioner (ST) (FAC),
Hosur (North) II Circle, Hosur.
2.The Deputy Commissioner (CT) (Appeals),
Hosur.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/05/2025 04:02:24 pm )
N.MALA, J.,
gpa
09.05.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/05/2025 04:02:24 pm )
