Allowed

Tvl.K.Senthil Kumar v. The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (Ct)

Madras HC17 Feb 2026WP(MD)/4501/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single-bench writ petition challenging rejection of delayed GST appeal. Court condoned 169-day delay due to genuine reasons and absence of fault. Directed petitioner to pay additional 10% pre-deposit; set aside rejection order and directed authorities to hear appeal on merits.

What did the court decide?

Impugned rejection order set aside; delay condoned; petitioner directed to pay additional 10% pre-deposit; appeal admitted on merits.

Tvl.K.Senthil Kumar Vs The Appellate Deputy… — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

¶1

W.P.(MD)No.4501 of 2026

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 17.02.2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY

¶6

W.P.(MD)No.4501 of 2026 & W.M.P(MD)Nos.3754 and 3755 of 2026

Tvl.K.Senthil Kumar

... Petitioner

The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (Ct),, Gst Appeals, Commercial Taxes Buildings, Trichy.

¶11

The State Tax Officer,, Woraiyur Assessment Circle, Commercial Taxes Buildings, Trichy..

¶12

... Respondents

¶13

PRAYER :- Writ Petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this court to issue a WRIT OF CERTIORARIFIED MANDAMUS, to call for the records on the file of the 1^st respondent in FORM GST APL 02 (ARN No.AD330425079189S) dated 16.10.2025 passed by the Respondent and to quash the same as non-speaking, illegal, arbitrary and direct the respondent to admit / restore and hear the petitioner's appeal filed on 30/04/2025 on merits or pass assessment order afresh.

¶14

1/7

¶15

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

¶16

W.P.(MD)No.4501 of 2026

¶17

For Petitioner : Mr.N.Sudalaimuthu For Respondents : Mr.R.Sureshkumar Additional Government Pleader

¶18

ORDER

¶19

This writ petition has been filed challenging the the impugned

¶20

rejection of appeal dated 16.10.2025 by the respondents.

¶21

Mr.R.Sureshkumar, learned Additional Government Pleader,

¶22

takes notice on behalf of the respondents.

¶23

By consent of the parties, the main writ petition is taken up for disposal at the admission stage itself.

¶24

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in this case, initially, the assessment order was passed on 16.07.2024. Due to the failure on the part of the petitioner's accountant, no appeal was filed within the prescribed time limit and it was filed with a delay of 169 days beyond the condonable period. Under these circumstances, the said appeal was rejected by the respondent, vide impugned rejection order

¶25

2/7

¶26

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

¶27

W.P.(MD)No.4501 of 2026

¶28

dated 16.10.2025, on the aspect of limitation. The learned counsel would submit that in the interregnum, the petitioner filed a rectification application on 31.08.2024, which was rejected on 31.01.2025 and hence, the appeal could not be filed in time.

¶29

5. Further, he would submit that the petitioner had already paid 10% towards statutory pre-deposit while filing the appeal and now, he is willing to pay additional 10% of disputed tax amount to the respondent. Therefore, he requests this Court to condone the delay in filing the appeal.

¶30

6. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that the delay may be condoned subject to terms and requests this Court to pass appropriate orders.

¶31

7. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents and also perused the materials available on record.

¶32

3/7

¶33

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

¶34

W.P.(MD)No.4501 of 2026

¶35

In the case on hand , the assessment order came to be passed on 16.07.2024. Aggrieved over the same, the appeal was belatedly preferred by the petitioner, i.e., with a delay of 169 days, beyond the condonable period, out of which, 153 days have been taken for filing rectification application. In such case, the said appeal was rejected by the respondent vide impugned order dated 16.10.2025. According to the petitioner, due to the failure on the part of the petitioner's Accountant, he remained unaware of the said order and hence, there was a delay of 169 days in filing the appeal.

¶36

9. The above reason assigned by the petitioner, for the delay in filing the appeal against the assessment order, appears to be genuine. In such view of the matter, this Court is inclined to condone the delay, in filing the appeal against the impugned assessment order.

¶37

Therefore, though the petitioner had already paid 10% of the disputed tax amount as statutory pre-deposit while filing the appeal, considering the delay, this Court directs the petitioner to pay additional 10% of the disputed tax amount to the respondents, as agreed by the

¶38

4/7

¶39

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

¶40

W.P.(MD)No.4501 of 2026

¶41

petitioner. Accordingly, this Court passes the following order:-

¶42

(i) Accordingly, the appeal rejection order dated 16.10.2025 passed by the 1 st respondent is set aside and the delay of 169 days in filing the appeal is hereby condoned, subject to the payment of additional 10% of the disputed tax amount by the petitioner to the respondents.

¶43

(ii) Upon payment of the said amount, t he petitioner is directed to represent appeal and on such representation, the 1 st respondent-Appellate Authority is directed to take the appeal on record and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law, after providing sufficient opportunity to the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible.

¶44

With the above directions, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are also closed.

¶45

17.02.2026

¶46

Index : Yes / No Neutral Citation : Yes / No RR

¶47

5/7

¶48

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

¶49

W.P.(MD)No.4501 of 2026

¶50

¶51

The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (Ct),, Gst Appeals, Commercial Taxes Buildings, Trichy.

¶52

The State Tax Officer,, Woraiyur Assessment Circle, Commercial Taxes Buildings, Trichy..

¶53

6/7

¶54

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

¶55

W.P.(MD)No.4501 of 2026

¶56

KRISHNAN RAMASAMY.J.,

¶57

¶58

W.P.(MD)No.4501 of 2026

¶59

17.02.2026

¶60

7/7

¶61

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

Tvl.K.Senthil Kumar v. The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (Ct)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tvl.K.Senthil Kumar v. The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (Ct)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Malarvizhi Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer

Kalaiselvam Vs The District Registrar

Ummul Hajara Vs The District Collector

Saminathan .v Vs The Commissioner

A.Mokkamayan Vs The District Collector

V.Chidambaram Vs The Sub Registrar