WP/38517/2026 of M/s.Bhandari Construction and Developers Private L Vs The Deputy Commissioner on 7 October 2026

Order

This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned appeal rejection order dated 02.09.2026.

WP No. 38517 of 2026

2. Mr.R.Sethu Prabakaran, learned Government Advocate (taxes), takes notice on behalf of the respondents. By consent of the parties, the writ petition is taken up for disposal at the admission stage itself.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that for the financial year 2018–2019, the Assessing Officer conducted an inspection and alleged that the petitioner had availed excess Input Tax Credit (ITC) on account of a difference between the ITC reported in Form GSTR-3B and Form GSTR-2A. The Assessing Officer, without providing an adequate opportunity of hearing, passed an Assessment Order dated 08.08.2023, which was subsequently challenged in W.P. No. 9290/2025. In the said writ petition, this Court set aside the Assessment Order and remanded the matter back for fresh consideration.

4. Pursuant to the remand order, the petitioner duly filed all necessary documents, supporting records, and explanations. However, despite the petitioner seeking additional time to submit the requested certificate, the Assessing Officer went ahead and passed the summary of the order in Form GST DRC-07 dated 20.04.2026, and also initiated consequential recovery proceedings. The order of assessment had not been served upon the petitioner through post and was made available only on the GST portal. Immediately upon becoming aware of this fact, the petitioner filed an appeal. However, the appeal

WP No. 38517 of 2026

preferred by the petitioner was rejected solely on the ground of "delay in submission of appeal." Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has approached this Court.

5. The learned counsel fairly submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to pay an additional 10% of the disputed tax amount. To that effect, she has also made an endorsement in the Court bundle.

6. 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 and requests this Court to pass appropriate orders.

7. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate for the respondents and also perused the materials available on record.

8. In the case on hand, the assessment order came to be passed by the second respondent on 20.04.2026. Aggrieved over the same, an appeal was preferred by the petitioner on 27.08.2026, i.e., with a delay of 38 days. Since the

WP No. 38517 of 2026

delay was beyond the condonable period, the said appeal was rejected by the first respondent vide impugned order dated 02.09.2026. According to the petitioner, since the order of Assessment had not been served upon the petitioner either through post and was available only on the GST portal, he was 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 of 38 days, this Court directs the petitioner to pay additional 10% of the disputed tax amount within a period of three (3) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, as agreed by the petitioner, to the respondents. Accordingly, this Court passes the following order:

i) The impugned rejection order dated 06.05.2026 is set aside and the delay of 38 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.

WP No. 38517 of 2026

ii) If the appeal filed by the petitioner was completely rejected, the petitioner is directed to file a fresh appeal along with the copy of this order, within a period of two weeks from the date of payment of the said payment.

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 providing sufficient opportunity to the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible.

iv) Considering the fact that the impugned order itself have been set aside, this Court is of the opinion that the attachment made on the bank account of the petitioner cannot survive any longer and hence, it is to be lifted. As a sequel, the concerned Bank is directed to de-freeze the bank account of the petitioner, immediately upon the production of a copy of this order.

11. With the above directions, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. W.M.P.No.43201 of 2026 is ordered. WMP.No.43202 /2026 is closed. 07-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No SK To The Deputy Commissioner, On behalf of the Appellate Authority, Hosur, Tamilnadu.

WP No. 38517 of 2026

KRISHNAN RAMASAMY J. SK WP No. 38517 of 2026 AND WMP NO. 43201 OF 2026,WMP NO. 43202 OF 2026 07-10-2026