Lakshmanan Murugaraj v. CIT (Appeals) (2025) 305 Taxman 656 (Mad)(HC)

S. 251 : Appeal-Commissioner (Appeals)-Powers-Assessment-Ex parte order-Officer issuing notices should strictly explore possibilities of sending notices through some other mode as prescribed in section 169(1) of GST Act which were also valid mode of service under Act-Delay of six months-Application for condonation of delay was rejected-On writ the delay was condoned, subject to payment of Rs.5000 to the credit of the Principal Government of Naturopathy College and Hospital-Matter remanded to the file of CIT(A) to decide on merits. [S. 143(3), 246A, Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, S.169(1), Art. 226]

Assessing Officer passed ex-parte assessment order.Assessee filed an appeal to Commissioner (Appeals) with a delay of more than six months.  He also filed an application for condonation of delay claiming that all show cause notices were issued to an outdated e-mail ID of assessee’s former auditor and he was unaware of said notices.  Application was rejected on grounds that delay was beyond condonable period i.e., after 6 months from date of ex-parte order. On writ the Court held that   when there was no response from tax payer to notice sent through a particular mode, Officer who was issuing notices should strictly explore possibilities of sending notices through some other mode as prescribed in section 169(1) of GST Act which were also valid mode of service under Act, otherwise it would not be an effective service, rather, it would only fulfilling empty formalities. Since reason assigned by assessee appeared to be genuine, delay in filing appeal was  condoned.  Delay was condoned, subject to payment of Rs.5000 to the credit of the Principal Government of Naturopathy College and Hospital.  Matter remanded to the file of CIT(A) to decide on merits.   (AY. 2021-22)  

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.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

*