WP/41690/2026 of SS Fabrics Mill Vs The Deputy Commissioner (CT) on 12 October 2026

ORDER

Challenge made in this Writ Petition is to the impugned appeal order in Form GST APL-02, dated 21.09.2026 passed by the first respondent against the assessment order in Form GST DRC-07, dated 24.11.2025 passed by the second respondent on the ground that there was a delay of 198 days in filing the appeal.

2. Mr. I. Dinesh, learned Additional Government Pleader (Taxes), 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. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the GST registration of the petitioner concern was suo motu cancelled by the second respondent with effect from 31.08.2023 vide order dated 21.03.2024. Thereafter, an intimation in Form GST DRC-01A dated 21.07.2025 was issued to the petitioner proposing certain discrepancies for the Financial Year 2021-22 and thereafter, a show cause notice was issued on 23.08.2025 fixing the date of 23.09.2025 both for the last date for reply as well as for personal hearing. Therefore, on 23.09.2025, the petitioner filed their reply requesting 60 days time for personal hearing and for submission of reply with all documentary evidence. Despite considering the request made by the petitioner, without providing any opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, the second respondent passed the assessment order dated 24.11.2025 in Form GST DRC-07

under Section 73 of the CGST/TNGST Act, 2017. The said order was uploaded by the respondents under the “View Additional Notices and Orders” column in the GST common portal. Since the petitioner’s wife died due to cancer on 30.01.2026, he fell ill and confined to bed under physician’s care. Therefore, he was not aware of the said order, due to which, he failed to file his appeal within the time. Being unaware of the said impugned order and serious ill-health of the petitioner, the petitioner has failed to file his appeal within time. Thereafter, the appeal against the aforesaid assessment order was preferred by the petitioner with a delay of 198 days. Since the said delay is beyond the condonable period, the appeal was rejected by the first respondent, vide rejection order dated 21.09.2026, on the aspect of limitation.

4. Further, she would submit that the petitioner is willing to pay 25% of the disputed tax amount to the respondent after deducting the amount already deposited by the respondent i.e., 10% of the disputed amount. To that effect, she has also made an endorsement in the Court bundle. Hence, she requests this Court to grant an opportunity to the petitioner to present their case before the first respondent by setting aside the impugned order.

5. On the other hand, the learned Additional Government Pleader (Taxes) 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 and requests this Court to pass appropriate orders.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader (Taxes) the respondents and also perused the materials available on record.

7. In the case on hand, the impugned assessment order came to be passed by the second respondent on 24.11.2025. Aggrieved over the same, an appeal was belatedly preferred by the petitioner on 21.09.2026, i.e., with a delay of 198 days. Since the delay is beyond the condonable period, the said appeal was rejected by the first respondent vide impugned order dated 21.09.2026. According to the petitioner, since he was under serious illness after the death of his wife, who died due to cancer, he remained unaware of the said order and were 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. Further, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is willing to pay 25% of the disputed tax amount to the respondent after deducting the amount already deposited by the respondent i.e.,

10% of the disputed amount. In such view of the matter, this Court is inclined to set aside the impugned order dated 21.09.2026 passed by the first respondent. Accordingly, this Court passes the following order:-

(i) The impugned rejection order dated 21.09.2026 is set aside and the delay of 198 days in filing the appeal against the assessment order is hereby condoned subject to the payment of remaining amount of 15% of the disputed tax amount by the petitioner to the respondent-Department deducting the amount of 10% already paid.

ii) If the appeal filed by the petitioner was completely returned, the petitioner is directed to file a fresh appeal, within a period of two weeks from the date of payment of amount as stated above.

iii) Thereafter, the first respondent/Appellate Authority is directed to take the appeal on record and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law, after affording sufficient opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible.

10. With the above directions, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected WMP.No.46770/2026 is ordered and WMP.No.46779/2026 is closed. 12-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No SRM

KRISHNAN RAMASAMY J. SRM To

1. The Deputy Commissioner (CT) Appellate Authority, Commercial Taxes Department Salem

2. The Assistant Commissioner (ST) Gugai Circle, Salem-I Commercial Taxes Department, Salem W.P. No. 41690 of 2026 12-10-2026