Madras High Court
WP/42202/2026 of Govindarajan Loganathan Vs Commercial Tax Officer/ State Tax Officer on 14 October 2026
WP No. 42202 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 14-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY
WP No. 42202 of 2026
CNR:{HCMA012454322026}
AND
WMP NO. 47379 OF 2026
Govindarajan Loganathan
Proprietor of Sankavi Enterprises,
16/2,Vikashini Illam,
Poombhuhar Nagar, Lakshmi Layout Rathinapuri, Coimbatore 641 027, Tamil Nadu.
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. Commercial Tax Officer/ State Tax Officer, Jurisdiction , Gandhipuram, Coimbatore-III, Coimbatore, Gandhipuram Circle, Coimbatore 18.
2. The Deputy Commissioner CT
Commercial Taxes Building Fourth Floor,
Dr.Balasundaram Road ,
Coimbatore – 641 018.
..Respondent(s)
Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records in the file of the First Respondent in respect of the impugned order under Section 73 of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017/Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 including the summary of the order in Form GST DRC -07 both dated 15.10.2025 and having Reference Number ZD3310251570221 and its annexure dated 15.10.2025 in GSTIN- 33AFIPL6641R1ZV / 2021- 22 passed by the First respondent for FY 2021-22 along with the acknowledgement in Form GST
WP No. 42202 of 2026
APL-02 dated 15.04.2026 having Reference Number ZD330426123692J issued by the second respondent under Rule 108 of Central Goods and Service Tax Rules, 2017/ Tamil Nadu goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 for the FY 2021- 22 and quash the same as illegal, contrary to the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Service Tax Act 2017/ Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017
and in violation of principles of natural justice and fair play.
For Petitioner(s):
Mr.N.V.Narayanan
For Respondent(s):
Mr.B.Sivaraman,
Government Advocate (Tax)
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 impugned Assessment Order dated 15.10.2025 passed by the first respondent and the appeal rejection order dated 15.04.2026 passed by the second respondent on the ground that there was a delay of 37 days, which is beyond the condonable period.
2. Mr.B.Sivaraman, learned Government Advocate takes notice on behalf of the respondents. By consent of the parties, the main Writ Petition is taken up for disposal at the admission stage itself.
3. Though the petitioner has challenged both the Assessment Order dated 15.10.2025 and appeal rejection order dated 15.04.2026, now he has restricted his prayer to the rejection order dated 15.04.2026.
WP No. 42202 of 2026
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the delay is due to the reason that the petitioner suffered from of ill-health. Upon subsequently logging into the portal, the petitioner became aware of the impugned order and immediately took steps to file the appeal. Being unaware of the said impugned order, the petitioner has failed to file the appeal within time. Thereafter, the appeal against the aforesaid assessment order was preferred by the petitioner with a delay of 37 days. Since the said delay is beyond the condonable period, the appeal was rejected by the second respondent, vide rejection order dated 15.04.2026, on the aspect of limitation. He would fairly submit that the petitioner is ready and willing to pay additional 5% of the disputed tax amount. To that effect, he has also made an endorsement in the Court bundle.
5. On the other hand, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents would submit that the delay, in filing the appeal, has occurred only due to the fault on the part of the petitioner. In the event, the petitioner pays an additional 5% of the disputed tax, the delay may be condoned.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate for the respondents and also perused the materials available on record.
WP No. 42202 of 2026
7. In the case on hand, the impugned assessment order came to be passed on 15.10.2025. Aggrieved over the same, an appeal was preferred by the petitioner on 21.03.2026 with a delay of 37 days. Since the delay was beyond the condonable period, the said appeal was rejected by the second respondent vide rejection order dated 15.04.2026. According to the petitioner, due to ill- health, he remained unaware of the said order and was consequently unable to file the appeal within the prescribed time.
8. 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.
9. Therefore, though the petitioner had already paid 10% of the disputed tax amount as pre-deposit while filing the appeal, considering the delay of 37 days, this Court directs the petitioner to pay additional 5% of the disputed tax over and above the mandatory statutory pre-deposit, within a period of two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, as agreed by him, to the respondents. Accordingly, this Court passes the following order:
WP No. 42202 of 2026
i) The impugned rejection order dated 15.04.2026 is set aside and the delay of 37 days in filing the appeal against the assessment order is hereby condoned. The setting aside of the impugned order will take effect from the date of payment of the said amount.
ii) The petitioner is directed to represent the appeal within a period of two weeks along with the proof of payment of additional 5% disputed tax.
iii) Thereafter, the second respondent/Appellate Authority is directed to take the appeal on record, subject to verification of the payment of said amount and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law, after providing sufficient opportunity to the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible.
10. With the above directions, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 14-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No RSI
WP No. 42202 of 2026
KRISHNAN RAMASAMY J. RSI To
1. Commercial Tax Officer/ State Tax Officer, Jurisdiction , Gandhipuram, Coimbatore-III, Coimbatore, Gandhipuram Circle, Coimbatore 18.
2. The Deputy Commissioner CT Commercial Taxes Building Fourth Floor, Dr.Balasundaram Road , Coimbatore – 641 018. WP No. 42202 of 2026 AND WMP NO. 47379 OF 2026 14-10-2026