Madras High Court
WP/41267/2026 of Balasubramanian Vs The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes on 15 October 2026
WP No. 41267 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 15-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY
WP No. 41267 of 2026
CNR:{HCMA012283542026}
AND
WMP NO. 46298 OF 2026
Balasubramanian
S/O.Sivadass
Proprietor of Udhayam Traders,
GSTIN No.33AYHPB5424C1Z3
15/6, 1st street, Dharansingh Colony,
Vadapalani, Chennai, Tamilnadu-600 026
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes
Commercial Taxes Department
2nd floor, Ezhilagam
chepauk chennai-600 005
2. The Deputy commissioner (CT)
Commercial Taxes Department
2nd floor, Ezhilagam
chepauk chennai-600 005
3. The State Tax officer(ST)
Vadapalani Assessment circle
No.01, PAPJAM Annex buildings
Greams road chennai-600 006
..Respondent(s)
Prayer:
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned FORM GST APL-02 dated 25.08.2026 passed by 2nd respondent bearing Reference No. ZD3308262292378 and quash the same, and consequently direct the 3rd Respondents to reconsider the DRC-07 order
WP No. 41267 of 2026
bearing Reference NO.ZD331225080705H dated 5.12.2025 on merits and in accordance with law For Petitioner(s):
Mr.P.Tamilalagan
For Respondent(s):
Mr.B.Sivaraman, GA
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
Order
This writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 25.08.2026 passed by the 2nd respondent.
2. Mr.R.Sivaraman, learned Government Advocate, takes notice on behalf of the respondent.
3. By consent of the parties, the main writ petition is taken up for disposal at the admission stage itself.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in this case, the assessment order dated 05.12.2025 came to be passed by the 3rd respondent. Aggrieved over the said assessment order, the petitioner filed an appeal on 17.07.2026 with a delay of 134 days beyond the condonable period. According to the petitioner, the said delay of 134 days had occurred only due to the fault of
WP No. 41267 of 2026
the part of the petitioner’s consultant. Since the said delay is beyond the condonable period, the appeal was rejected by the respondent, vide impugned rejection order dated 25.08.2026, on the aspect of limitation. Hence, this writ petition has been filed.
5. Further, he would submit that the petitioner had already paid 10% towards statutory pre-deposit while filing the appeal and now, he is willing to pay additional 10% of disputed tax amount to the respondent. Therefore, he requests this Court to condone the delay in filing the appeal.
6. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that though all the notices and orders were duly uploaded by the respondents, the petitioner had failed to file the appeal in time. Hence, he would contend that the said delay has occurred only due to the fault on the part of the petitioner and requests this Court to pass appropriate orders.
7. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents and also perused the materials available on record.
WP No. 41267 of 2026
8. In the case on hand, initially, the assessment order came to be passed on 05.12.2025. Aggrieved over the same, an appeal was belatedly preferred by the petitioner on 17.07.2026, i.e., with a delay of 134 days. Since the delay was beyond the condonnable period, the said appeal was rejected by the respondent vide impugned order dated 25.08.2026. According to the petitioner, due to fault on the part of the petitioner’s consultant, they were unable to file the appeal within time.
9. The above reason assigned by the petitioner, for the delay in filing the appeal against the assessment order, appears to be genuine. In such view of the matter, this Court is inclined to condone the delay, in filing the appeal against the impugned assessment order on terms.
10. Therefore, though the petitioner had already paid 10% of the disputed tax amount as statutory pre-deposit while filing the appeal, considering the delay, this Court directs the petitioner to pay additional 10% of the disputed tax amount to the respondents, as agreed by the petitioner. Accordingly, this Court passes the following order:-
(i) Accordingly, the appeal rejection order dated 25.08.2026 passed by the 2nd respondent is set aside and the delay of 134 days in filing the appeal before the respondent is
WP No. 41267 of 2026
hereby condoned, subject to the payment of additional 10% of the disputed tax amount, over and above the statutory pre- deposit already paid by the petitioner, to the respondents.
(ii) Upon payment of said amount, the 2nd respondent- Appellate Authority is directed to take the appeal on record and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law, after providing sufficient opportunity to the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible.
11. With the above directions, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is also closed. 15-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No nsa To
1. The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes Commercial Taxes Department 2nd floor, Ezhilagam chepauk chennai-600 005
2. The Deputy commissioner (CT) Commercial Taxes Department 2nd floor, Ezhilagam chepauk chennai-600 005
3. The State Tax officer(ST) Vadapalani Assessment circle No.01, PAPJAM Annex buildings Greams road chennai-600 006
WP No. 41267 of 2026
KRISHNAN RAMASAMY J. nsa WP No. 41267 of 2026 AND WMP NO. 46298 OF 2026 15-10-2026