Sruthi Raj v. The Assistant Commissioner of GST and C Ex.

Madras HC23 Apr 2025CMA/560/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Condonation of delay; CESTAT South Zonal Bench Chennai; Miscellaneous Order No.40425 of 2024; ST/COD No.40661 of 2024; appeal under Section 35G Central Excise Act 1944; Commissioner (Appeals-II) order 29.3.2023; order returned undelivered by speed post; RTI communication 11.11.2024; email to Chartered Accountant unreceived/spam folder; bank account frozen by department; delay condoned; CESTAT order quashed; appeal to be registered and decided on merits; Madras High Court Division Bench; no costs.

What did the court decide?

Impugned CESTAT order dated 12.12.2024 quashed and set aside; CESTAT Registry directed to register the appeal and place it before the Tribunal for appropriate orders on merits; no order as to costs; interim applications closed. ¶¶37

Sruthi Raj Vs The Assistant Commissioner of GST and C Ex. — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶37

Issue for consideration

Whether the delay in filing the appeal before CESTAT against the Commissioner (Appeals-II) order dated 29.3.2023 ought to be condoned.

¶¶30

Court's answer

Since there was no evidence to counter the appellant's case that she never received the order dated 29.3.2023 (which an RTI communication showed was returned undelivered by speed post and emailed to her Chartered Accountant who denied receipt), the delay, if any, in filing the appeal ought to be condoned.

¶¶30

Ratio / Principle

The order dated 12.12.2024 passed by CESTAT rejecting the condonation of delay application is quashed and set aside.

¶¶31

Key takeaways

The Registry of CESTAT shall register the appeal and place it before the Tribunal for appropriate orders on merits.ratio¶¶35

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

MADRAS HIGH COURT (K.R.SHRIRAM, Chief Justice, delivering the judgment for the Bench, and MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J.) — C.M.A.No.560 of 2025, decided 23.04.2025: Sruthi Raj v. The Commissioner of CGST & C.Ex., Chennai South Commissionerate. Appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 against Miscellaneous Order No.40425 of 2024 in ST/COD No.40661 of 2024 in Appeal Diary No.41461 of 2024 dated 12.12.2024 of CESTAT, South Zonal Bench, Chennai, rejecting condonation of delay in filing an appeal against the Commissioner (Appeals-II) order dated 29.3.2023. Appellant pleaded she never received that order and learnt of it only when her bank account was frozen by the department; an RTI communication dated 11.11.2024 disclosed that the order dispatched by speed post on 30.3.2023 was returned undelivered with no reason given, and was thereafter emailed on 13.4.2023 at 2.59 pm to [email protected] — Vijay Sukumar, the appellant's Chartered Accountant, who stated he had not received it and it may have been lost in the spam folder; the impugned CESTAT order referred to none of this and no affidavit or explanation from the department was on record. Finding no evidence to counter the appellant's case, the Bench held the delay, if any, ought to be condoned, quashed and set aside the order dated 12.12.2024, and directed the CESTAT Registry to register the appeal and place it before the Tribunal for appropriate orders on merits. Appeal disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs; interim applications closed.

¶1

C.M.A.No.560 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 23.04.2025

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.K.R.SHRIRAM, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ

¶8

C.M.A.No.560 of 2025 and C.M.P.Nos.4288 and 4290 of 2025

Sruthi Raj

... Appellant

vs.

The Commissioner of CGST & C.Ex., Chennai South Commissionerate, No.692, MHU Complex, Nandhanam, Chennai-600 035.

¶13

... Respondent

¶14

Prayer : Appeal filed under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 against the Miscellaneous Order No.40425 of 2024 in ST/COD No.40661 of 2024 in Appeal Diary No.41461 of 2024 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, South Zonal Bench, Chennai.

¶15

For Appellant(s): Ms.Akila S

¶16

For Respondent(s): Mr.A.P.Srinivas Sr. Standing Counsel

¶17

Page 1 of 5

¶18

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶19

C.M.A.No.560 of 2025

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

(Delivered by the Hon'ble Chief Justice)

¶22

Appellant is impugning an order dated 12.12.2024 passed by Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, South Zonal Bench, Chennai (CESTAT), rejecting appellant's application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. Appellant sought to impugn an order dated 29.3.2023 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals-II) before the CESTAT.

¶23

It is appellant's case that appellant never received a copy of the said order dated 29.3.2023 and appellant got to know, for the first time, only when appellant's bank account was frozen by the department.

¶24

Appellant has filed with the appeal a copy of the communication dated 11.11.2024 received by appellant under the Right to Information Act, in which it is noted that the order that was

¶25

___________ Page 2 of 5_

¶26

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶27

C.M.A.No.560 of 2025

¶28

dispatched by speed post on 30.3.2023 came to be returned undelivered. Why it was returned undelivered, no reason is given. There is no affidavit from the department or explanation referred to in the impugned order. The communication received under the Right to Information Act states that the order was thereafter sent by email to [email protected] on 13.4.2023 at 2.59 pm. However, the impugned order does not refer to any of this.

¶29

Moreover, it is appellant's case that said Vijay Sukumar, who was appellant's Chartered Accountant, stated that he has not received the email and perhaps the order would have got lost in spam folder in email account.

¶30

In these circumstances, since there is no evidence to counter appellant's case, in our view, the delay, if any, ought to be condoned.

¶31

Consequently, the order dated 12.12.2024 is quashed and set

¶32

___________ Page 3 of 5_

¶33

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶34

C.M.A.No.560 of 2025

¶35

aside. The Registry of CESTAT shall register the appeal and place it

¶36

before the Tribunal for appropriate orders on merits.

¶37

Appeal is disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to

¶38

costs. Consequently, interim applications stand closed.

¶39

(K.R.SHRIRAM, C.J.) (MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J.) 23.04.2025

¶40

Index : Yes/No NC : Yes/No sasi

¶41

¶42

The Commissioner of CGST & C.Ex., Chennai South Commissionerate, No.692, MHU Complex,

¶43

Nandhanam, Chennai-600 035.

¶44

The Deputy Registrar Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Shastri Bhavan, Annexe Building, 1^st Floor, 26-Haddows Road, Chennai – 600 006.

¶45

Page 4 of 5

¶46

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶47

C.M.A.No.560 of 2025

¶48

THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J.

¶49

(sasi)

¶50

C.M.A.No.560 of 2025