Disposed¶33

Rg Associates v. Deputy Commissioner Commercial Taxes (Appeals - I)

Madras HC13 Jul 2026WP/25052/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

RG Associates v. Deputy Commissioner Commercial Taxes (Appeals – I), Coimbatore — WP No. 25052 of 2026 (Madras HC, 13-07-2026, Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy J.): condonation of delay; GST appeal rejected for delay despite accompanying condonation application (Form GST APL-02 dated 08.08.2025, ref. ZD3308250794708); sufficient cause shown (ill-health of appellant's accountant, inability to retrieve data); writ of certiorarified mandamus under Article 226; appellate order set aside, delay condoned, appeal restored for decision on merits.

What did the court decide?

Impugned appellate order set aside; delay condoned; appellate authority directed to receive and dispose of the appeal on merits; connected writ miscellaneous petitions closed; no order as to costs. ¶33

Rg Associates Vs Deputy Commissioner Commercial… — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

¶1

WP No. 25052 of 2026

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 13-07-2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY

¶6

WP No. 25052 of 2026 and W.M.P.Nos.27344 & 27345 of 2026

¶7

RG Associates Represented by its Partner, Sahana Sekar 867, 11th Street, Gandhipuram, Coimbatore-641 012.

¶8

..Petitioner(s)

¶9

¶10

Deputy Commissioner Commercial Taxes (Appeals – I) Commercial Tax Building, Dr. Balasundaram Road, Coimbatore -641 018

¶11

Assistant Commissioner (ST) Gandhipuram Assessment Circle Commercial Tax Building, Dr. Balasundaram Road, Coimbatore-641018

¶12

..Respondent(s)

¶13

PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India

¶14

praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the Impugned Order in Form GST APL-02 dated 08.08.2025

¶15

bearing reference ZD3308250794708 issued by the 1st Respondent, to quash the same and direct the Respondent to restore the Appeal filed by the Petitioner.

For Petitioner(s):

Mr.Rayyan

Page1 of 4

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

¶20

WP No. 25052 of 2026

¶21

For Respondent(s): Ms.Amirta Poonkodi Dinakaran, Government Counsel (Tax)

¶22

¶23

ORDER

¶24

An assessment order dated 07.04.2025 was carried in appeal by the petitioner. Said appeal was lodged on 07.08.2025. The appeal was rejected on the ground of delay.

¶25

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the appeal was rejected

¶26

in spite of being accompanied by an application to condone delay.

¶27

Ms.Amirta Poonkodi Dinakaran, learned Government Counsel (Tax), accepts notice on behalf of the respondents.

¶28

The record shows that the appeal was lodged on the last date of the condonable period along with an application to condone delay. In said application, it is stated that the appeal could not be filed within the three month period due to ill-health of the appellant’s accountant and the consequential inability to retrieve relevant data. I am satisfied that sufficient cause is shown.

¶29

__________ Page2 of 4

¶30

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

¶31

WP No. 25052 of 2026

¶32

In the above circumstances, the rejection of the appeal in spite of being accompanied by an application to condone delay is unsustainable. Hence, the appellate order is set aside, the delay is condoned and the appellate authority is directed to receive and dispose of the appeal on merits.

¶33