HC Invokes Writ Power to Condone 288-Day Appeal Delay on Medical Grounds.

Issue

Can a High Court, exercising its extraordinary writ jurisdiction, condone a delay in filing a GST appeal that is far beyond the maximum statutory limit (120 days) prescribed under Section 107 of the CGST Act, on the grounds of the petitioner’s severe illness and their consultant’s failure to inform them?

Facts

The petitioner was proceeded against for the 2017-18 period. The SCN and reminder were uploaded to the GST portal, but the petitioner received no physical service.
The petitioner did not file a reply because they were hospitalized and their consultant failed to inform them of the notices.
An adverse assessment order, imposing tax, interest, and penalty, was passed without a personal hearing and uploaded to the portal.
The petitioner only learned of the order belatedly, after their recovery, and filed a statutory appeal with a delay of 288 days.
The 1st respondent (Appellate Authority) dismissed the appeal as time-barred, as it has no power to condone a delay beyond the maximum 120-day (3 months + 1 month) limit.
The petitioner filed a writ petition against this dismissal.

Decision

The High Court set aside the appellate authority’s order that had dismissed the appeal.
It held that the reasons for the delay, specifically the petitioner’s illness and the consultant’s failure to communicate, appeared genuine.
The court used its extraordinary constitutional (writ) jurisdiction to condone the 288-day delay, which the statutory authority could not.
This condonation was made conditional: the petitioner must deposit an additional 5% of the disputed tax (over and above the standard 10% pre-deposit) within four weeks.
Upon compliance (total 15% deposit), the appellate authority was directed to take the appeal on file and decide it on its merits after providing a proper hearing.

Key Takeaways

Writ Power Transcends Statutory Limits: The High Court’s power under Article 226 of the Constitution is not restricted by the limitation periods (like the 120-day cap in Section 107) that bind statutory authorities.
Genuine Hardship is a Valid Ground: A severe medical condition, supported by evidence, is a strong and genuine cause that can persuade a High Court to exercise its extraordinary powers to ensure justice is done.
Conditional Relief: The court can balance the equities by granting relief (condoning the delay) while also imposing a condition (a higher pre-deposit) to compensate for the procedural lapse and secure the revenue’s interest.
Violation of Natural Justice: The fact that the original order was also passed without a personal hearing likely strengthened the petitioner’s case that the proceedings against them were unjust, further justifying the High Court’s intervention.

HIGH COURT OF MADRAS

Mrs.T. Porkodi

Deputy Commissioner (CT)

Krishnan Ramasamy, J.

Writ Petition No.20516 of 2025
WMP.No.23168 of 2025

JUNE 13, 2025

V. Jaishankar for the Petitioner. Ms. P. Selvi, Govt. Adv. (Taxes) for the Respondent.

ORDER

1. Ms.AmirthaPoonkodi Dinakaran, learned Government Advocate (Taxes), takes notice on behalf of the respondents. With consent, the main Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission itself.

2. This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 28.03.2025 passed by the 1^st Respondent and to quash the same.

3. Ms.P.Selvi, learned Government Advocate (Taxes) 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.

4. The learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the 2^nd respondent issued show cause notice to the petitioner on 01.09.2023 followed by reminder dated 23.11.2023 to the petitioner by uploading the same in the GST portal without serving physical copy of the said notices to the petitioner and the Petitioner’s consultant who was entrusted with the work relating to GST failed to inform the same to the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner was not aware of the showcause notice and hence failed to file reply. Subsequently, without providing an opportunity of personal hearing, the 2^nd respondent passed the impugned assessment order dated 28.03.2025, against the petitioner demanding the payment of tax along with penalty and interest for the Assessment Year 2017-2018 and the same was also uploaded in the GST portal, the same was also not informed to the petitioner by the consultant and that apart the petitioner was hospitalized at that point of time. The petitioner came to know of the assessment order belatedly. After coming to know of the assessment order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the 1^st respondent on 02.01.2025 challenging the assessment order, with a delay of 288 days. The 1^st Respondent vide order dated 28.03.2025 dismissed the appeal on the ground of delay. Being aggrieved over the same, the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking for the aforesaid relief.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that since the petitioner was hopitalized on account of his ill health at the time of passing of impugned assessment order coupled with the fact that the petitioner’s consultant failed to inform about the impugned assessment order, there is a delay of 288 days in filing the Appeal. Therefore, he requested this Court to condone the delay and direct the 1^st respondent to dispose of the appeal within the stipulated period.

6. The learned Government Advocate (Taxes) appearing for the respondents would fairly submit that the delay may be condoned on terms.

7. In reply, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has already deposited 10% of the disputed tax at the time of filing appeal and now ready to deposit another 5% of disputed tax over and above the statutory deposit 10% before the authority concerned.

8. Heard both sides and also perused the materials available on record.

9. In the present case, according to the petitioner, due to ill health of the Petitioner and also since the petitioner’s consultant failed to inform her about the impugned proceedings, there is a delay of 288 days in filing the Appeal.

10. In such view of the same, this Court is of the view that the reasons assigned by the petitioner for the delay in filing the appeal appears to be genuine. Hence, this Court is inclined to set aside the impugned order passed by the 1^st respondent dated 28.03.2025 and condone the delay of 288 days in filing the Appeal before the 1^st Respondent. Accordingly, this Court passes the following order:-

(i)

Accordingly, the impugned order dated 28.03.2025 passed by the 1^st respondent is set aside and the delay of 288 days in filing the appeal before the 1^st respondent is condoned subject to payment of 5% of additional deposit with respect to disputed tax demand, in addition to 10% of statutory deposit, before the 2^nd respondent, as agreed by the petitioner, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

(ii)

On such payment being made, the 1st respondent 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.

11. With the above directions, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.