Condonation Granted For Delayed Appeal Filing Due to Health
Issues – Madras High Court
Brief
Summary:
In the case Sixer
Marketing vs. Deputy Commissioner (GST) Appeal & Anr. (W.P. No. 26185
of 2025), the Madras High Court allowed the taxpayer to file a delayed appeal
against an assessment order passed under Section 73 of the CGST/TNGST Act. The
Court exercised its equitable jurisdiction, considering the health condition of
the proprietor and the fact that nearly 49% of the disputed tax was
already recovered by the department. Though the petitioner initially challenged
the assessment order, the Court granted liberty to file an appeal without
being barred by limitation.
Case Title
and Details:
- Case Name:
Sixer Marketing vs. Deputy Commissioner (GST) Appeal & Another
- Writ Petition No.:
26185 of 2025 & W.M.P.Nos.29496 to 29498 of 2025
- Date of Order:
22.07.2025
- Court:
High Court of Judicature at Madras
Background
and Facts:
Sixer Marketing,
represented by its proprietor Mr. Narpatkumar, approached the Madras
High Court challenging a demand order dated 27.02.2025 passed under Section
73 of the CGST/TNGST Act for the tax period April 2020 to March 2021.
- The petitioner initially sought to quash
the assessment order and unfreeze its bank account.
- However, during the hearing, the
petitioner restricted his relief to a request for liberty to file an
appeal against the said order.
- The delay in appeal filing was
attributed to health issues faced by the proprietor.
- The department had already recovered ₹8,69,827,
which was 49% of the total demand of ₹17,67,734.
Submissions
Before the Court:
Petitioner’s Submissions:
- The petitioner was unable to file an
appeal within the prescribed time due to health reasons.
- Only a 30-day delay occurred,
and the petitioner is now willing to file the appeal.
- Since a significant portion of the
tax has already been recovered, the appeal should be permitted without any
prejudice.
Respondents' Submissions:
- The department raised no serious
objection and left it to the discretion of the Court.
- Requested the Court to pass
appropriate orders for filing the appeal.
Findings of
the Hon’ble High Court:
- The Court noted that substantial
compliance (49% of demand already paid) had been made.
- The petitioner’s restricted prayer
was genuine and reasonable, and the delay was due to justifiable
personal reasons.
- Since no serious opposition was
raised by the department, the Court decided to dismiss the writ
petition but permit appeal filing, overriding the bar of
limitation.
Final
Judgment & Directions:
1. The
writ petition was dismissed, but
2. Liberty
was granted to the petitioner to file an appeal
before the Appellate Authority within 2 weeks from the receipt of the
Court’s order.
3. The
Appellate Authority was directed to entertain the appeal, without
pressing limitation, and pass orders on merits and in accordance with
law after providing an opportunity of hearing.
Conclusion:
The Sixer Marketing
judgment serves as a useful precedent for taxpayers who miss statutory
deadlines due to unavoidable circumstances. The High Court upheld justice
over procedure, offering relief to a taxpayer who demonstrated genuine
hardship and compliance efforts. It is a clear message that GST law is not
just about rules, but also about fairness.
Disclaimer: All the Information is based on the notification, circular advisory and order issued by the Govt. authority and judgement delivered by the court or the authority information is strictly for educational purposes and on the basis of our best understanding of laws & not binding on anyone.
Click here
