Delay in filing of appeal condoned as Impugned order remained unnoticed on GST portal.

The Hon’ble Madras High Court in Red Rose Garments v. Deputy Commissioner, Erode and Ors [W.P. No. 16031 of 2025 dated June 02, 2025] condoned a delay of 72 days in filing an appeal beyond the prescribed period, holding that the Petitioner’s failure to take note of the ex-parte Impugned order uploaded on the GST common portal was a genuine reason. The appeal was restored for hearing on merits, subject to an additional pre-deposit of 15% of the disputed tax amount.

Facts:

Red Rose Garments (“the Petitioner”) was subjected to an ex-parte assessment by the Deputy Commissioner (CT), Erode & Others (“the Respondents”). The Respondent had uploaded the Show Cause Notices, and the Order dated August 31, 2023 (“the Impugned Order”) on the GST common portal. However, the Petitioner failed to take note of the same and was unable to respond or file a reply.

The Petitioner contended that the Impugned order remained unnoticed due to being only uploaded digitally, and thus they were unaware of its existence. As a result, the Petitioner was unable to file an appeal within the prescribed limitation period. When the appeal was ultimately filed on February 09, 2024, there was a delay of 72 days which was beyond the condonable period. Consequently, the appeal was rejected by the Respondent by order dated December 27, 2024 on the grounds of limitation.

The Petitioner further submitted that they had already paid 10% of the disputed tax as mandatory pre-deposit while filing the appeal and expressed willingness to deposit an additional 15% of the disputed tax amount to secure a hearing on merits.

The Respondent argued that the Show Cause Notices and the Impugned Order was duly uploaded and accessible on the GST common portal and that the delay occurred solely due to the Petitioner’s inaction.

Aggrieved by the rejection of its appeal on grounds of limitation, the Petitioner approached the Hon’ble High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking quashing of the Impugned order and direction to restore the appeal for hearing on merits.

Held:

The Hon’ble Madras High Court in W.P. No. 16031 of 2025 held as under:

• Observed that, the Impugned order was passed ex-parte on August 31, 2023 and the appeal was filed belatedly on February 9, 2024, with a delay of 72 days and the appeal was rejected by the appellate authority on December 27, 2024 solely on the ground that the delay exceeded the time limit for filing the appeal.
• Observed that, the reason cited by the Petitioner, that the Impugned order remained unnoticed as it was uploaded on the GST common portal and no direct intimation was received, appears to be genuine and reasonable.
• Held that, in the interest of justice, the delay in filing the appeal merited condonation on terms. However, the delay in filing the appeal was directed to be condoned subject to the payment of additional 15% of the disputed tax amount by the petitioner to the Respondent, the Court permitted such deposit as a condition for restoring the appeal.
• Accordingly, the Hon’ble Court, set aside the rejection order dated December 27, 2024 and condoned the delay of 72 days in filing the appeal, and directed the appellate authority to take the appeal on record and dispose it on merits, in accordance with law, after granting the Petitioner sufficient opportunity of hearing.

 (Author can be reached at [email protected])