Madras HC Condoned GST Trader’s 6- And 12-Day Appeal Delays After Consultant Error, Allowing Appeals To Proceed On ₹5,000 Per Case

In brief

The question

Whether the appellate authority’s rejection of the appeals could be set aside and the six- and twelve-day delays condoned, given the petitioner’s explanation that the delay resulted from its consultant’s fault.

The court held

The Court set aside the appeal-rejection orders dated 26 May and 8 June 2026 and condoned the respective six- and twelve-day delays, conditional on payment of ₹5,000 in each petition to the specified Principal Government Naturopathy Medical College and Hospital account.

It also directed

Upon payment, the appellate authority was directed to take the appeals on record and decide them on their merits, in accordance with law, after giving the petitioner sufficient opportunity.

The writ petitions were disposed of without costs, and the connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.

01Facts

The petitioner challenged assessment orders dated 24 December 2025 under Section 73 of the TNGST Act, 2017, and orders rejecting its appeals as time-barred.

p. 2

The petitioner said it had requested additional time to reply to the show-cause notices, but the assessments were made without granting that time.

p. 2

It filed appeals on 30 April and 6 May 2026, respectively, with delays of six and twelve days beyond the condonable period.

pp. 2–4

The petitioner attributed the delay to its consultant’s fault; the appeals had been filed with the statutory 10% pre-deposit.

pp. 2–4

The appellate authority rejected both appeals on limitation grounds.

pp. 3–4

02Issues

i.Whether the appellate authority’s rejection of the appeals could be set aside and the six- and twelve-day delays condoned, given the petitioner’s explanation that the delay resulted from its consultant’s fault.

pp. 3–5

ii.Whether the appeals should be restored for consideration on their merits, subject to terms.

p. 5

03Law Applied

The petitions were brought under Article 226 of the Constitution, and the challenged assessment orders were made under Section 73 of the TNGST Act, 2017.

pp. 1–2

The judgment refers to the statutory pre-deposit for filing an appeal and to the applicable condonable period, but does not identify the specific statutory provision governing appeal limitation or cite any precedent.

The Court’s stated approach was to condone the delay on terms where the explanation appeared genuine.

p. 5

Provisions in the judgment · 1

Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 Section 73

04Reasoning

The Court noted that the appeals had been filed beyond the condonable period and that the petitioner attributed the delay to its consultant.

p. 4

It found that explanation genuine and exercised its jurisdiction to set aside the rejection orders and condone the delays, notwithstanding that they exceeded the condonable period.

pp. 4–5

In view of the existing 10% pre-deposit, it imposed an additional payment of ₹5,000 in each petition as a condition for restoration of the appeals.

p. 5

05Holding

p. 5

Upon payment, the appellate authority was directed to take the appeals on record and decide them on their merits, in accordance with law, after giving the petitioner sufficient opportunity.

p. 5

The writ petitions were disposed of without costs, and the connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.

p. 6

LawLens.Madras High Court

Original Court PDF