Genuine unawareness of an ex parte assessment justified condoning an otherwise non-condonable GST appeal delay on terms.

The petitioner challenged the rejection of its GST appeal as time-barred, along with the underlying assessment and related orders and recovery notice.

The assessment was made ex parte on 10 August 2023.

The petitioner said its consultant had not informed it of the order, and that it therefore remained unaware of the assessment.

It filed an appeal on 1 September 2025, which the first respondent rejected on 4 August 2026, recording a delay of 127 days beyond the condonable period.

The petitioner had paid the 10% disputed-tax pre-deposit and agreed to pay an additional 10% to obtain condonation of the delay.

Whether the 127-day delay in filing the appeal against the ex parte assessment should be condoned despite being beyond the condonable period.

Whether condonation should be granted subject to payment of an additional 10% of the disputed tax and further directions for the appeal’s consideration.

The judgment does not identify or apply a particular GST statutory provision, cite precedent, or set out a general legal test for condoning delay.

It addresses the matter in the exercise of the High Court’s writ jurisdiction under Article 226, as invoked in the petition.

The court’s stated approach was to assess the explanation for delay and, in the circumstances of this case, condone it on terms, including an additional payment and directions for the appeal to be considered on its merits.

The court found the petitioner’s explanation—that it remained unaware of the ex parte assessment because its consultant failed to inform it—appeared genuine.

In view of that explanation, and the petitioner’s undertaking to pay an additional 10% of the disputed tax, the court considered it appropriate to condone the delay on terms rather than leave the rejection in force.

The court did not decide the merits of the underlying assessment; it directed the appellate authority to consider the appeal after providing the petitioner an opportunity to be heard.

If the appeal had been completely rejected, the petitioner was directed to file a fresh appeal with a copy of the order within two weeks of payment.

The appellate authority was then directed to take the appeal on record and decide it on the merits, in accordance with law, after providing sufficient opportunity to the petitioner.

The writ petition was disposed of without costs.