Madras High Court
WP/39977/2026 of M/s. UNIQUE FACADE SOLUTION Vs The Deputy Commissioner CT on 9 October 2026
WP No. 39977 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 09-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY
WP No. 39977 of 2026
CNR:{HCMA011503322026}
AND
WMP NO. 44913 OF 2026
M/s. Unique Facade Solution
Rep. by its proprietor./ Authorized signatory M.Karunakaran, S/o. Murugaian having office at ,40, Rajas Garden, Main Road, Chennai, Chengalpattu , Tamil Nadu, 600095
GSTIN 33BGLPK5937N1ZT
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
The Deputy Commissioner CT
Kanchipuram Assessment circle,
Kanchipuram
..Respondent(s)
Prayer:
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned order rejecting the petitioners statutory appeal in Apl 02 vide reference No. ZD3305262903484 against order No. ZD3312251686773 in FORM GST DRC 07 dated 11.12.2025 on the ground of limitation quash the same and consequently direct the Appellate Authority to condone the delay, readmit the appeal , and dispose of the same on merits in accordance with law after duly taking into consideration the technical glitches faces in the GST
portal and the petitioners bonafide attempts made within the period of limitation
WP No. 39977 of 2026
For Petitioner(s):
Mr.Manikandan. B
For Respondent(s):
Mr.R.Sethu Prabakaran, 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 29.05.2026 passed by the respondent.
2. Mr.R.Sethu Prabakaran, 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 11.12.2025 came to be passed by the respondent. Aggrieved over the said assessment order, the petitioner made an attempt to file an appeal on 09.04.2026, which is well within the time limit. However, due to some technical error, he was unable to file the same. Thereafter, an appeal was preferred by the petitioner on 15.04.2026 with a delay of 4 days. According to the petitioner, the said delay of 4 days had occurred only due to the technical error. Since the said delay is beyond the condonable period, the appeal was
WP No. 39977 of 2026
rejected by the respondent, vide impugned rejection order dated 29.05.2026, 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 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 11.12.2025. Aggrieved over the same, an appeal was belatedly preferred by the petitioner on 15.04.2026, i.e., with a delay of 4 days. Since the delay was
WP No. 39977 of 2026
beyond the condonnable period, the said appeal was rejected by the respondent vide impugned order dated 29.05.2026. According to the petitioner, due to technical error and difficulties in uploading the documents in the portal, 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 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 29.05.2026 passed by the respondent is set aside and the delay of 4 days in filing the appeal before the 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 respondent- Appellate Authority is directed to take the appeal on record and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with
WP No. 39977 of 2026
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. 09-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No nsa To The Deputy Commissioner CT Kanchipuram Assessment circle, Kanchipuram
WP No. 39977 of 2026
KRISHNAN RAMASAMY J. nsa WP No. 39977 of 2026 09-10-2026