HC Condoned Appeal Delay Due to Managing Partner’s Medical Treatment

Excise & Service Tax • News • Case Chronicles

Appeal delay condonation
Case Details: Tvl. Bullmenn Motors Versus Deputy Commissioner (CT), Coimbatore (2025) 33 Centax 54 (Mad.) 

Judiciary and Counsel Details

  • Krishnan Ramasamy, J.
  • Shri T.Ramesh for the Petitioner
  • Shri V.Prashanth Kiran, Government Adv. (Tax) for the Respondent

Facts of the Case

The petitioner, on scrutiny of returns, was found to have certain discrepancies, pursuant to which a notice in DRC-01 was issued proposing to demand tax, interest, and other amounts. Upon filing a reply, the Adjudicating Authority partially accepted the petitioner’s submissions, dropping proceedings relating to the demand of differential tax, reversal of input tax credit, and payment of interest for belated filing of returns, but confirming the demand of interest on payment of differential tax. An appeal was preferred against the said order; however, the Appellate Authority rejected the appeal on the ground of limitation. The petitioner submitted that the delay in filing the appeal occurred because the managing partner of the petitioner-firm was undergoing medical treatment, which prevented timely filing. The matter was accordingly placed before the High Court of Madras. 

High Court Held

The High Court of Madras held that the reason provided by the petitioner for the belated filing of the appeal, namely the medical condition of the managing partner, appeared to be genuine. In view of the circumstances explained, and exercising powers under Section 107 of the CGST and the Tamil Nadu GST, it was directed that the delay in filing the appeal be condoned. The appeal was accordingly restored before the Appellate Authority for disposal on merits. 

List of Cases Reviewed

List of Case Cited

Leave Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Related Stories
FA 2010 Service Tax Levy on Construction Upheld | HC

Excise & Service Tax • News • Case Chronicles

January 31, 2026

Tobacco Products Assessable Under Section 4, Not 4A | CESTAT

Excise & Service Tax • News • Case Chronicles

January 28, 2026

Clandestine Removal Demand Set Aside For Lack Of Proof | CESTAT

Excise & Service Tax • News • Case Chronicles

January 27, 2026

No Review on Interest/Penalty If Duty Set Aside | HC

Excise & Service Tax • News • Case Chronicles

January 24, 2026

Duty Demand Set Aside; Review Of Interest Penalty Invalid | HC

Excise & Service Tax • News • Case Chronicles

January 23, 2026

Booking Speakers Via Agents Not Event Management | SC

Excise & Service Tax • News • Case Chronicles

January 22, 2026

RCM Service Tax Refund Allowed Despite Registration Status | CESTAT

Excise & Service Tax • News • Case Chronicles

January 21, 2026

One-Day Delayed Payment Due To Tech Glitch Accepted | HC

Excise & Service Tax • News • Case Chronicles

January 20, 2026

Chocolate-Coated Wafers Eligible For Concessional Duty | SC

Excise & Service Tax • News • Case Chronicles

January 19, 2026

Adjudication Invalid After SVLDRS Acceptance | HC

Excise & Service Tax • News • Case Chronicles

January 17, 2026