The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of T. Porkodi v. The Deputy Commissioner (CT) & Anr. [Writ Petition No. 20516 of 2025 dated June 13, 2025] condoned delay of 288 days in filing GST appeal due to genuine reasons of ill health and lack of notice, subject to deposit of additional 5% of disputed tax.
Facts:
Porkodi (“the Petitioner”) received a show cause notice on September 1, 2023, and a reminder on November 23, 2023, both uploaded on the GST portal but not physically served to her or her consultant. The Petitioner’s consultant failed to inform her, and she was hospitalized at the impugned time period.
The Deputy State Tax Officer-I (“2nd Respondent”) passed an assessment order dated March 28, 2025 under GST law for FY 2017–2018, demanding tax, penalty, and interest, without granting the Petitioner a personal hearing. The order was uploaded on the GST portal but was not informed to the Petitioner by their consultant, and at that time the Petitioner was hospitalized. On learning of the order belatedly, the Petitioner filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner (CT) (“1st Respondent”) on January 02, 2025 with a delay of 288 days. The 1st Respondent dismissed the appeal on March 28, 2025 for delay.
Aggrieved, the Petitioner has filed the present writ petition.
Issue:
Whether delay in filing appeal due to ill health and failure of consultant to inform can be condoned?
Held:
The Hon’ble Madras High Court in Writ Petition No. 20516 of 2025 held as under:
- Observed that, the petitioner was hospitalized during the period of delay and the Petitioner’s consultant failed to inform her about the show cause notice and assessment order.
- Noted that, these reasons were genuine and justified the delay of 288 days in filing the appeal, thus condoned the delay subject to the petitioner depositing an additional 5% of the disputed tax over and above the statutory 10% deposit within four weeks of the order.
- Directed the first respondent to admit the appeal, provide opportunity of hearing, and dispose of it on merits expeditiously.
Our Comments:
In the case of M/s. Bokna Raiyat Rojgar Committee v. Union of India [W.P.(T) No. 6208 of 2024], the Jharkhand High Court strictly enforced the limitation prescribed under Section 107(1) of the CGST Act. Despite the petitioner’s plea citing cash-flow difficulties and medical hardships, the Court dismissed the appeal as it was filed about 17 months after the cancellation of GST registration, well beyond the three-month limitation and the one-month condonation period under the statute. The judgment reiterates that statutory timelines for appeals under the GST Act are mandatory and non-extendable except within the narrow grace period expressly provided. Neither health issues nor operational setbacks justify condonation of delay beyond this limit.
This ruling contrasts with the instant case decided by the Madras High Court, where the Court condoned a 288-day delay due to the petitioner’s hospitalization and lack of notice caused by the petitioner’s consultant. The Madras High Court’s approach was more liberal, balancing the taxpayer’s genuine hardship with the need to protect revenue by requiring an additional deposit before entertaining the delayed appeal.
Relevant Provisions:
Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017
107. Appeals to Appellate Authority.-
“(1) Any person aggrieved by any decision or order passed under this Act or the State Goods and Services Tax Act or the Union Territory Goods and Services Tax Act by an adjudicating authority may appeal to such Appellate Authority as may be prescribed within three months from the date on which the said decision or order is communicated to such person.
(2) The Commissioner may, on his own motion, or upon request from the Commissioner of State tax or the Commissioner of Union territory tax, call for and examine the record of any proceedings in which an adjudicating authority has passed any decision or order under this Act or the State Goods and Services Tax Act or the Union Territory Goods and Services Tax Act, for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the legality or propriety of the said decision or order and may, by order, direct any officer subordinate to him to apply to the Appellate Authority within six months from the date of communication of the said decision or order for the determination of such points arising out of the said decision or order as may be specified by the Commissioner in his order.
(3) Where, in pursuance of an order under sub-section (2), the authorised officer makes an application to the Appellate Authority, such application shall be dealt with by the Appellate Authority as if it were an appeal made against the decision or order of the adjudicating authority and such authorised officer were an appellant and the provisions of this Act relating to appeals shall apply to such application.”
CLICK HERE FOR OFFICIAL JUDGMENT COPY
(Author can be reached at info@a2ztaxcorp.com)
DISCLAIMER: The views expressed are strictly of the author and A2Z Taxcorp LLP. The contents of this article are solely for informational purpose and for the reader’s personal non-commercial use. It does not constitute professional advice or recommendation of firm. Neither the author nor firm and its affiliates accepts any liabilities for any loss or damage of any kind arising out of any information in this article nor for any actions taken in reliance thereon. Further, no portion of our article or newsletter should be used for any purpose(s) unless authorized in writing and we reserve a legal right for any infringement on usage of our article or newsletter without prior permission.
