In a significant ruling, the Madras High Court has reaffirmed that procedural technicalities should not defeat substantive justice under the GST regime. The Court condoned a delay in filing an appeal where the assessee was bona fide pursuing a rectification application before the assessing authority.
Background of the Case
The assessee had challenged an assessment order under the GST law. However, instead of immediately filing an appeal, the assessee first filed a rectification application seeking correction of certain issues in the assessment order.
While the rectification application was pending, the statutory time limit for filing an appeal expired. As a result, the appeal was filed with a delay of 69 days beyond the condonable period prescribed under the statute.
The appellate authority rejected the appeal solely on the ground of limitation, stating that it had no power to condone the delay beyond the statutory cap.
Issue Before the Court
Whether delay in filing a GST appeal beyond the maximum condonable period can be excused when the assessee was genuinely pursuing a rectification remedy?
Court’s Observations
The High Court observed that:
- The delay was neither intentional nor due to negligence.
- The assessee was pursuing a statutory remedy in the form of rectification.
- The pendency of the rectification application constituted a reasonable and bona fide cause.
- Procedural limitations should not override the principles of natural justice when no mala fide intention is evident.
The Court emphasized that justice should prevail over technicalities, especially in tax matters where substantive rights are involved.
Final Ruling
Setting aside the impugned order, the Court:
- Condoned the delay,
- Directed the assessee to pay an additional 10% of the disputed tax, and
- Ordered the appellate authority to hear the appeal on merits.
Why This Judgment Matters
This decision is important for GST taxpayers because it:
- Recognizes pendency of rectification proceedings as a valid ground for delay.
- Protects bona fide litigants from harsh procedural consequences.
- Reinforces the principle that access to appellate remedies should not be denied on purely technical grounds.
Citation: [2026] 183 taxmann.com 608 (Madras)
Date: 09-02-2026