Condonation of Delay in Filing GST Appeal Allowed Due to
Business Closure and Death of MD: Madras High Court
Brief Facts
of the Case:
The petitioner, Superfine
Bleaching Company Ltd., represented by its manager Mr. K.P.E. Ravindran,
filed the writ petition challenging the Order-in-Original dated 22.04.2024
(corrected via Corrigendum on 24.04.2024) passed by the Superintendent of CGST
& Central Excise for the tax period April 2018 to March 2019.
The petitioner failed to
file a statutory appeal against the impugned order within time due to two main
reasons:
1. Demise
of the Managing Director of the company.
2. Temporary
business closure due to pollution issues.
Case Title
and Details:
- Case Name:
Ms. Superfine Bleaching Company Limited vs. The Superintendent, CGST
& Central Excise
- Writ Petition No.:
22716 of 2025 and W.M.P. No. 25553 of 2025
- Date of Order:
26.06.2025
- Court:
High Court of Judicature at Madras
Submission
by the Petitioner:
- Due to the MD’s demise and
operational issues, the company was not in a position to file an appeal
within the limitation period.
- The petitioner voluntarily expressed willingness
to deposit 25% of the disputed tax, comprising:
- 10% statutory pre-deposit,
and
- Additional 15% voluntarily.
- The petitioner sought liberty from
the Court to file an appeal before the appellate authority.
Submission
by the Respondent:
- The learned Senior Panel Counsel Mr.
Su. Srinivasan fairly submitted that:
- The department has no objection to
the matter being remanded for consideration by the appellate
authority.
- However, such liberty may be granted
subject to the petitioner’s deposit of 25% of the disputed tax
amount.
Court’s
View and Decision:
- The Court acknowledged the genuine
difficulties faced by the petitioner, including:
- The death of the Managing
Director, and
- Business shutdown
due to pollution-related challenges.
- Though more than a year had
elapsed since the impugned order was passed, the Court considered it a
fit case for indulgence, given the circumstances and petitioner’s
readiness to comply financially.
Final
Judgment & Directions:
1. The
petitioner is granted liberty to file an appeal before the Appellate
Authority within three weeks from receipt of this order.
2. This
liberty is conditional upon deposit of:
o 15%
of the disputed tax, in addition to the
o 10%
statutory pre-deposit.
3. Upon
filing of the appeal, the Appellate Authority shall hear the matter on
merits, without insisting on limitation and pass orders in accordance
with law.
4. The
writ petition is accordingly disposed of.
5. There
is no order as to costs.
6. The
connected miscellaneous petition is also closed.
Conclusion:
This ruling reaffirms
that natural justice and fair opportunity must be preserved, even in
cases involving delay, where sufficient cause is shown. The Madras High
Court showed sensitivity to the petitioner’s hardships and allowed belated
filing of appeal in the interest of justice. It also sets an example of flexibility
in tax litigation, especially where the taxpayer demonstrates good faith
and voluntary compliance.
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.
Press On Click Here To Download Order File
Click here
