Case Note & Summary
The case involves a petition filed by Tvl. SK Knit Apparels, a partnership firm, seeking condonation of a 418-day delay in filing a Writ Appeal before the Madras High Court. The appeal challenged a common order dated 09.09.2024 passed by a learned single Judge in Writ Petition No. 7051 of 2024, which pertained to a first appellate order under the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 for the assessment period 2017-18. The petitioner, represented by its partner, attributed the delay to three reasons: (1) the partner suffered a bereavement, (2) the partner was taking care of his hospitalized father-in-law, and (3) the partner mistakenly believed that an appeal could be filed before the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT), which had not yet been constituted. The Court, comprising Dr. Anita Sumanth J. and Mummineni Sudheer Kumar J., examined the petition and found the first two reasons vague and unsupported by any material particulars or medical records. The Court noted that the petitioner's counsel could not provide necessary particulars despite a specific query. Regarding the third reason, the Court observed that the petitioner was well aware that the remedy against the assessment was before the High Court, as evidenced by the fact that the petitioner had already filed a Writ Petition in time. The Court concluded that no sufficient cause was shown for the delay and dismissed the petition, thereby refusing to condone the delay.
Headnote
A) Limitation Act - Condonation of Delay - Section 5 - Sufficient Cause - The petitioner sought condonation of 418 days delay in filing a Writ Appeal, citing bereavement, hospitalization of father-in-law, and mistaken belief about alternate remedy before GSTAT. The Court held that the first two reasons were vague and unsupported by any material particulars or medical records, and thus not credible. The third reason was rejected as the petitioner was aware of the non-constitution of the Tribunal and had already filed a Writ Petition. Held that no sufficient cause was shown for condonation (Paras 4-7).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the delay of 418 days in filing the Writ Appeal should be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, based on the reasons provided by the petitioner.
Final Decision
The petition for condonation of delay is dismissed. Consequently, the Writ Appeal is rejected at the SR stage itself.
Law Points
- Condonation of delay
- Sufficient cause
- Limitation Act
- Section 5
- Vague reasons
- Lack of material particulars
- Credibility of explanation
- Alternate remedy awareness
Case Details
2026 LawText (MAD) (01) 113
WA SR NO. 198624 OF 2025 and CMP No. 32716 of 2025
Dr. Anita Sumanth, Mummineni Sudheer Kumar
Mr.T.Ramesh (for appellant), Mr.C.Harsha Raj, Special Government Pleader (for respondents)
Deputy Commissioner (ST)-GST Appeal, Salem and Erode; Assistant Commissioner (ST), Anuparpalayam Assessment Circle, Tiruppur
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Petition for condonation of delay in filing a Writ Appeal under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
Remedy Sought
Condonation of 418 days delay in filing the Writ Appeal against the common order dated 09.09.2024 passed in Writ Petition No. 7051 of 2024.
Filing Reason
The petitioner sought to challenge the order of the learned single Judge, but filed the appeal belatedly due to alleged bereavement, hospitalization of a family member, and mistaken belief about alternate remedy before GSTAT.
Previous Decisions
The learned single Judge passed a common order on 09.09.2024 in Writ Petition No. 7051 of 2024, which is the subject of the proposed appeal.
Issues
Whether the delay of 418 days in filing the Writ Appeal should be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioner argued that the delay was caused by the partner's bereavement, hospitalization of his father-in-law, and a mistaken belief that an appeal could be filed before the GSTAT.
The respondents opposed the condonation, and the Court found the reasons vague and unsupported by evidence.
Ratio Decidendi
For condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the applicant must show sufficient cause with credible and specific particulars. Vague reasons unsupported by material evidence, such as medical records, do not constitute sufficient cause. Additionally, a mistaken belief about an alternate remedy is not credible when the applicant was already aware of the correct remedy and had availed it earlier.
Judgment Excerpts
As far as the first and second reasons are concerned, we find them vague as no material particulars in regard to the bereavement or the hospitalisation, including medical records have been produced.
Having approached this Court by way of Writ Petition in time, the fact that the petitioner is aware of the non-constitution of the Tribunal is apparent. In such circumstances, we find no merit in the reference to the alternate remedy before the GSTAT.
Procedural History
The petitioner filed a Writ Petition (No. 7051 of 2024) challenging a first appellate order under the Tamil Nadu GST Act, which was dismissed by a learned single Judge on 09.09.2024. The petitioner then sought to file a Writ Appeal but with a delay of 418 days. A petition for condonation of delay (CMP No. 32716 of 2025) was filed along with the appeal (WA SR No. 198624 of 2025). The High Court heard the condonation petition and dismissed it on 07.01.2026.
Acts & Sections
- Limitation Act, 1963: Section 5
- Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017: Section 112
