Madras High Court
WP/39928/2026 of Manish Pipes and Company Vs The State Tax Officer on 9 October 2026
WP No. 39928 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 09-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY
WP No. 39928 of 2026
CNR:{HCMA012234452026}
Manish Pipes and Company
Rep by its Prop Kalu Singh
No. 32, K.K. Lane No. 3, Avinashi
Road,Coimbatore 641018
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The State Tax Officer
Avinashi Road Assessment Circle,
Coimbatore 641018
2. The Deputy Commissioner CT
Coimbatore 641018
..Respondent(s)
Prayer:
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the Order passed by the 2nd Respondent in Form GST APL-02 dated 13.05.2026 with Ref. No. ZD330526114153U and quash the same and direct the 2nd Respondent to accept the Appeal bearing ARN AD3304260506091
For Petitioner(s):
Mr.Adithya Reddy
For Respondent(s):
Mr.R.Sethu Prabakaran, GA
WP No. 39928 of 2026
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 13.05.2026 passed by the respondent.
2. Ms.Amirta Poonkodi Dinakaran, learned Additional Government Pleader, 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 show cause notice was issued by the respondent on 28.05.2025, for which the replies were filed by the petitioner on 06.06.2025 & 29.07.2025. Thereafter, the assessment order dated 09.12.2025 came to be passed by the respondent. Aggrieved over the said assessment order, an appeal was preferred by the petitioner on 23.04.2026 with a delay of 45 days. According to the petitioner, the said delay of 45 days had occurred due to the ill-health of the petitioner. Since the said delay is beyond the condonable period, the appeal was rejected by the respondent, vide impugned rejection order dated 13.05.2026, on the aspect of limitation. Hence, this writ petition has been filed.
WP No. 39928 of 2026
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 5% 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.
8. In the case on hand, initially, the assessment order came to be passed on 09.12.2025. Aggrieved over the same, an appeal was belatedly preferred by the petitioner on 23.04.2026, i.e., with a delay of 45 days. Since the delay was beyond the condonnable period, the said appeal was rejected by the respondent vide impugned order dated 13.05.2026. According to the petitioner, due to ill- health of the petitioner, they were unable to file the appeal within time.
WP No. 39928 of 2026
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 5% 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 13.05.2026 passed by the 2nd respondent is set aside and the delay of 45 days in filing the appeal before the 2nd respondent is hereby condoned, subject to the payment of additional 5% 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.
WP No. 39928 of 2026
11. With the above directions, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are also closed. 09-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No nsa To
1. The State Tax Officer Avinashi Road Assessment Circle, Coimbatore 641018
2. The Deputy Commissioner CT Coimbatore 641018
WP No. 39928 of 2026
KRISHNAN RAMASAMY J. nsa WP No. 39928 of 2026 09-10-2026