Partly allowed¶25

Tvl v. Ramasamy v The State Tax Officer

Madras HC24 Nov 2025WP(MD)/33638/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

GST appeal rejection condonation of delay; section 73 assessment order 13.05.2024 AY 2022-23; FORM GST DRC 07; FORM GST APL 02; appeal filed within condonable period but no condonation application; substantial justice; inherent powers of High Court; delay condoned; appellate authority to number and dispose appeal on merits; certiorari under Article 226; Madurai Bench of Madras High Court; G.R. Swaminathan J.; writ petition partly allowed; Tvl.V.Ramasamy v. State Tax Officer, Kodumudi Assessment Circle, Karur.

What did the court decide?

Order of the appellate authority rejecting the appeal set aside and quashed; delay in filing the appeal condoned; appellate authority directed to number the appeal and dispose of it on merits and in accordance with law; no costs; connected miscellaneous petitions closed. ¶25

Tvl v Ramasamy Vs The State Tax Officer — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶25

Issue for consideration

Whether the appellate authority was right in rejecting the taxpayer's appeal, filed beyond the limitation period but within the condonable period, solely because no application for condonation of delay was filed, and whether the delay should be condoned in the interest of substantial justice.

¶19

Court's answer

In the interest of substantial justice, the appellate authority's rejection of the appeal is set aside, and the delay occasioned in filing the appeal is condoned by invoking the inherent powers of the Court.

¶19

Ratio / Principle

The appellate authority is directed to number the appeal and dispose of it on merits and in accordance with law.

¶19

Key takeaways

Only the appellate authority's order of rejection is quashed; the assessment order itself is left untouched, and the petitioner is at liberty to canvass all his contentions against the assessment order before the appellate authority.ratio¶20

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (Madurai Bench), G.R. Swaminathan, J. — W.P(MD)No.33638 of 2025, decided 24.11.2025: A taxpayer's appeal against a section 73 GST assessment order dated 13.05.2024 (AY 2022-23) was rejected by the appellate authority solely because, though the appeal was filed within the condonable period, no application for condonation of delay accompanied it. Holding that substantial justice required otherwise, the Court invoked its inherent powers, condoned the delay, quashed the appellate authority's rejection order alone (leaving the assessment order intact), and directed the appellate authority to number the appeal and dispose of it on merits and in accordance with law. Writ petition partly allowed; no costs; connected miscellaneous petitions closed.

¶1

W.P(MD)No.33638 of 2025

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 24.11.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN

¶6

W.P(MD)No.33638 of 2025 and W.M.P.(MD)Nos.26545 & 26546 of 2025

¶7

Tvl.V.Ramasamy ... Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

1.The State Tax Officer, Office of the Commercial Tax Officer, Kodumudi Assessment Circle, Karur, Tamil Nadu.

¶10

2.The Deputy Commissioner (CT), Erode, Tamil Nadu. ... Respondents

¶11

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the impugned proceedings passed by the 1st Respondent in the order vide GSTIN No 33AKRPR9686C1ZH/2022-23 dated 13.05.2024 passed under section 73 of the act along with the consequential summary order in FORM GST DRC 07 vide ref no. ZD330524083050U dated 13.05.2024 along with consequential proceeding of acknowledgment for submission of appeal in FORM GST APL 02 vide ref no. ZD330425078401M dated 08.04.2025 issued by the 2nd Respondent to quash the same.

¶12

1/4

¶13

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

¶14

W.P(MD)No.33638 of 2025

¶15

For Petitioner : Mr.D.Raju

¶16

For Respondent : Mr.R.Suresh Kumar Additional Government Pleader

¶17

ORDER

¶18

Heard both sides.

¶19

The petitioner suffered an adverse assessment order dated 13.05.2024. It pertains to the assessment year 2022-2023. The petitioner filed an appeal before the appellate authority. Though the appeal was not filed within time, it was filed within the condonable period. It appears that the petitioner failed to file an application for condonation of delay. On that sole ground, the appeal itself came to be rejected. Though I will not fault the appellate authority for having taken such a view, in the interest of substantial justice, the impugned order is set aside. Invoking the inherent powers of this Court, the delay occasioned in filing an appeal is condoned. The appellate authority is directed to number the appeal and dispose it of on merits and in accordance with law.

¶20

It is seen that the petitioner has assailed the assessment order as well as the order of rejection passed by the appellate authority. The order of the appellate authority alone is quashed. The petitioner is at liberty to canvass all

¶21

2/4

¶22

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

¶23

W.P(MD)No.33638 of 2025

¶24

his contentions against the assessment order before the appellate authority.

¶25