WP/42836/2026 of M/S.Pavni Engineering Private Limited Vs The Deputy Commissioner (CT) on 16 October 2026

ORDER

Mr.R.Sethu Prabakaran, learned Government Advocate (Tax) takes notice for the Respondent.

( Uploaded on: 28/10/2026 01:27:43 pm )

W.P.No.42836 of 2026

2. With the consent of both sides, this Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.

3. The relief sought in this Writ Petition is to quash the Order in Form GST APL-02 dated 12.10.2026 passed by the Respondent and to direct the Respondent to dispose of the Petitioner’s Appeal in Form GST APL-01 dated 09.10.2026.

4. The learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Respondent had issued the Show Cause Notice in GST Form DRC-01 dated 02.09.2024 alleging that the Input Tax Credit (ITC) availed by the Petitioner from a key vendor viz., M/s. IFT Engineering Private Limited constituted capital expenditure rather than eligible input services. By the said Show Cause Notice, the Respondent called upon the Petitioner to file its Objection if any, within 30 days from the date of receipt of the said notice and to appear for personal hearing on 03.10.2024. After the receipt of said Show Cause Notice, Petitioner filed its Reply on 20.06.2024 & 01.04.2025. However, without considering the Petitioner’s Reply, the Assistant Commissioner, Chromepet Assessment Circle, Chennai had passed the Assessment Order dated 10.06.2026 along with summary of the Order in Form GST DRC-07, confirming the tax and penalty proposed in the Show Cause Notice and directing the Petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.10,72,564/-.

( Uploaded on: 28/10/2026 01:27:43 pm )

W.P.No.42836 of 2026

4.1. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the Deputy Commissioner, Tambaram Zone had issued a Notice in Form GST DRC-13 dated 30.09.2026 to the Branch Manager of all banks, attaching the Petitioner’s Bank Accounts under Section 79 of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. Challenging the Assessment Order dated 10.06.2026, the Petitioner preferred an Appeal in Form GST APL-01 dated 09.10.2026 along with an Application for condonation of delay before the Respondent. However, the Respondent vide Proceedings in Form GST APL-02 dated 12.10.2026, rejected the Petitioner's Appeal for the reason that “delay in submission of appeal”, without affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the Petitioner.

4.2. The learned counsel for the Petitioner also submitted that in the present case, the Petitioner has filed the Appeal on 09.10.2026. The three month appeal filing period expired on 10.09.2026 and the expiry date of one month condonable period is 10.10.2026. In the present case, the Appeal has been filed 29 days beyond the three month appeal filing period and one day prior to the expiry of the condonable period of one month. There was only a delay of 29 days in filing the Appeal. Therefore, the Appeal filed by the Petitioner is well within the time prescribed under Section 107(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for brevity, “CGST Act”).

( Uploaded on: 28/10/2026 01:27:43 pm )

W.P.No.42836 of 2026

4.3. The learned counsel for the Petitioner also submitted that the Petitioner Company’s Director viz., Mrs.J.Veni was in her maternity leave from 01.03.2026 till 01.10.2026 and hence, there was a delay of 29 days in filing the Appeal against the Assessment Order dated 10.06.2026. The Petitioner has filed the Appeal along with an Application praying to condone the delay in filing the Appeal. Further, the Petitioner had annexed the medical records of Mrs.J.Veni with the Appeal. The delay in filing the Appeal was neither willful nor wanton. Therefore, the learned counsel prayed this Court to condone the delay of 29 days in filing the Appeal and issue appropriate direction to the Respondent to dispose of the Petitioner's Appeal.

5. The learned Government Advocate (Tax) appearing for the Respondent submitted that the Petitioner has filed the Appeal beyond the condonable period of 120 days and hence, the Respondent has rejected the Petitioner’s Appeal.

6. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record.

7. In the present case, challenging the Assessment Order dated 10.06.2026 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Chromepet Assessment Circle, Chennai, the Petitioner preferred an Appeal before the Respondent on

( Uploaded on: 28/10/2026 01:27:43 pm )

W.P.No.42836 of 2026

09.10.2026. Though the Petitioner has filed the Appeal within a time limit prescribed under Section 107(4) of the CGST Act, the Respondent has rejected the same by citing the reason that “Delay in submission of Appeal”. The reason stated by the Petitioner for belated filing of the Appeal appears to be genuine. Hence, this Court is inclined to issue/pass the following directions/orders:

(i) The impugned Order in Form APL-02 dated 12.10.2026 passed by the Respondent is set aside and the delay of 29 days in filing the Appeal against the Assessment Order dated 10.06.2026 is condoned.

(ii) The Petitioner is directed to re-present the Appeal before the Respondent, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

(iii) On such representation of Appeal by the Petitioner, the Respondent shall take up the Petitioner's Appeal on record and dispose of the same on merits and in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner.

8. With the above directions, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. 16-10-2026 mrr Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-Speaking Order

( Uploaded on: 28/10/2026 01:27:43 pm )

W.P.No.42836 of 2026

To The Deputy Commissioner (CT), Appellate Authority, Chengalpattu, Tamil Nadu – 603 101.

( Uploaded on: 28/10/2026 01:27:43 pm )

W.P.No.42836 of 2026

KRISHNAN RAMASAMY, J. mrr W.P.No.42836 of 2026 16-10-2026

( Uploaded on: 28/10/2026 01:27:43 pm )