WP/39196/2026 of Gokulakrishnan Vs The Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Tax on 6 October 2026

ORDER

This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the impugned rejection order dated 31.12.2025 passed by the 1st respondent on the ground that there was a delay of 414 days, which is beyond the condonable period.

2. Mr. I. Dinesh, learned Additional Government Pleader 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 would submit that the delay occurred because the Accountant failed to communicate the impugned order to the petitioner. The petitioner subsequently learned of the order only when the bank account was attached on 22.04.2025. Being unaware of the said impugned order, the petitioner has failed to file their appeal within time. Thereafter, the appeal against the aforesaid assessment order was preferred by the petitioner with a delay of 414 days. Since the said delay is beyond the condonable period, the appeal was rejected by the first respondent, vide rejection order dated 31.12.2025, on the aspect of limitation. He would fairly submit that the petitioner is ready and willing to pay additional 10% of the disputed tax amount. To that effect, he has also made an endorsement in the Court bundle.

4. On the other hand, the learned Additional Government Pleader 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.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents and also perused the materials available on record.

6. In the case on hand, the impugned order came to be passed on 13.08.2024. Aggrieved over the same, an appeal was belatedly preferred by the petitioner on 13.11.2025, i.e., with a delay of 414 days. Since the delay was beyond he condonnable period, the said appeal was rejected by the first respondent vide impugned order dated 31.12.2025. According to the petitioner, since they had exited the business, they remained unaware of the said order and were consequently unable to file the appeal within the prescribed time.

7. 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.

8. Therefore, though the petitioner had already paid 10% of the disputed tax amount as pre-deposit while filing the appeal, considering the delay of 414 days, this Court directs the petitioner to pay additional 10% of the disputed tax amount within a period of two (2) 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 31.12.2025 is set aside and the delay of 414 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) 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 orders 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 first respondent is directed to instruct the concerned Bank to release the attachment, de-freeze the bank account of the petitioner and permit the petitioner to operate their bank account immediately upon proof of payment of the said amount.

9. With the above directions, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. W.M.P.No.44003 of 2026 filed to dispense with the production of the original impugned order is allowed. 06-10-2026 Asi

To

1. The Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Tax, Office of the Deputy Commissioners of State Tax, Kancheepuram Assessment Circle, 1st Floor Commercial Tax Office, Collectorate Campus, kancheepuram.

2. The Deputy State Tax Officer 1, Kancheepuram Assessment Circle, 1st Floor, Commercial Tax office, Collectorate Campus, Kancheepuram

KRISHNAN RAMASAMY, J. Asi WP No. 39196 of 2026 and WMP No.44003 of 2026 06-10-2026