2025 (8) TMI 1047 - HC - GST

Natural justice breached: show-cause notice only on GST portal; 288-day delay condoned; petitioner to deposit 15%

Mrs. T. Porkodi Versus Deputy Commissioner (CT), Chennai and Deputy State Tax Officer - I, Chennai

Mrs. T. Porkodi Versus Deputy Commissioner (CT), Chennai and Deputy State Tax Officer - I, Chennai - TMI ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED 1. Whether delay of 288 days in filing statutory appeal against assessment order uploaded on the GST portal can be condoned on grounds of (a) petitioner's ill health (hospitalization) and (b) failure of the petitioner's consultant to inform the petitioner of notices/orders? 2. Whether condonation of delay is permissible subject to deposit conditions and, if so, what deposit percentage and procedural directions are appropriate to permit the appeal to be taken on record? ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1 - Condonation of delay of 288 days in filing statutory appeal where notices/orders were uploaded on GST portal but not physically served and appellant was hospitalized Legal framework: The legality of condoning delay in filing statutory appeals is governed by principles permitting exercise of judicial discretion where sufficient cause is shown; grounds like ill health and bona fide non-receipt of communication have historically been treated as potentially sufficient reasons to explain delay. The scheme of GST appeals contemplates a time limit for filing appeals, but courts may condone delay when reasons are satisfactory. Precedent treatment: The judgment does not cite or rely on specific precedents; The Court applied established equitable and discretionary principles to the facts presented rather than expressly following or distinguishing reported decisions. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court examined the factual matrix: (a) assessment order and earlier show-cause notice/reminder were uploaded on the GST portal without physical service; (b) the petitioner's consultant, responsible for GST matters, did not inform the petitioner; and (c) the petitioner was hospitalized at the time the impugned assessment order was passed and thus unaware of the order. On these facts The Court found the reasons for delay to be genuine. The Court treated the combination of ill health and failure of the consultant to notify as adequate explanation for delay in seeking appellate remedy despite statutory time-limits, taking into account fairness and the right to be heard on merits. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - A delay of 288 days in filing an appeal under the statutory scheme may be condoned where the appellant establishes genuine cause, including medical incapacity and non-receipt of portal communications due to counsel/consultant omission, thereby warranting consideration of appeal on merits. Obiter - No expansive principle beyond the facts was articulated; no general rule altering the statutory regime was laid down. Conclusions: The Court set aside the appellate authority's dismissal for delay and condoned the 288-day delay on the specific factual grounds of hospitalization and consultant's failure to inform, thereby permitting the appeal to be entertained on merits. Issue 2 - Conditional exercise of discretion: deposit requirement and directions for remand of appeal Legal framework: Courts routinely condition exercise of discretionary relief (such as condonation of delay) upon compliance with monetary or procedural safeguards to protect revenue interests. Statutory schemes often require deposit of a portion of disputed tax for stays or entertainments of appeals; courts may impose additional deposits as a condition to balance competing interests. Precedent treatment: The Court did not cite specific authority; it applied the common practice of imposing deposit conditions to secure revenue interest while enabling adjudication on merits. Interpretation and reasoning: The respondents conceded that delay may be condoned on terms. The petitioner had already deposited 10% of disputed tax at the time of filing the appeal and offered to deposit an additional 5%. The Court found it appropriate to protect revenue interest and to reflect the parties' positions by ordering an additional deposit of 5% over and above the statutory 10%, to be paid within a fixed period. The Court further directed that on such payment the appellate authority must take the appeal on record, provide sufficient opportunity to the appellant, and decide the appeal expeditiously on merits and in accordance with law. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Condonation of delay may be made subject to an additional monetary deposit (5% of disputed tax in this case) beyond statutory deposit as a condition precedent to permitting the appeal to be taken on record; on compliance, the appellate authority must adjudicate the appeal on merits after affording sufficient opportunity. Obiter - The specific quantum and time-limit were fact- and consent-driven; the Court did not prescribe a universal formula for deposit percentages in all cases. Conclusions: The Court ordered condonation of the 288-day delay conditional upon payment of an additional 5% deposit within four weeks, directed the appellate authority to admit and decide the appeal on merits after providing opportunity to the appellant, and thereby balanced the appellant's right of access to justice with protection of revenue interests. Ancillary procedural findings Legal framework and reasoning: The Court proceeded to dispose of the writ petition at the admission stage by consent of parties and remitted the matter to the appellate authority for adjudication subject to the deposit condition. No costs were imposed. The Court emphasized expeditious disposal by the appellate authority. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Where parties consent and sufficient cause for delay is shown, a court may set aside an order of dismissal for delay and remit the appeal to the statutory forum with directions to decide on merits after compliance with conditional terms. Obiter - The Court made no pronouncement on broader standards for portal-only service or on duties of tax consultants beyond the factual finding of consultant's failure to inform. Conclusions: The writ petition was disposed by setting aside the delay dismissal, prescribing a deposit condition, and directing prompt meritorious consideration by the appellate authority; connected miscellaneous petition closed and no costs awarded.