Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Tvl. SK Knit Apparels, a partnership firm, filed a petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, seeking condonation of a 418-day delay in filing a Writ Appeal against a common order dated 09.09.2024 passed by a learned single Judge in Writ Petition No. 7051 of 2024. The Writ Petition had challenged a first appellate order under the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 for the period 2017-18. The reasons for delay, set out in paragraphs 4 and 5 of the condonation petition dated 26.11.2025, were that the partner in charge of High Court matters had suffered a bereavement, was caring for his hospitalized father-in-law, and mistakenly believed that an appeal could be filed before the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT). The Court found the first two reasons vague as no material particulars or medical records were produced, and learned counsel could not provide necessary particulars. Regarding the third reason, the Court noted that the Tamil Nadu GST Act provides for a second appeal under Section 112, but since the Tribunal was not constituted, writ petitions were being entertained. The petitioner had already filed a Writ Petition, demonstrating awareness of the non-constitution of the Tribunal, and thus the alternate remedy plea was without merit. Consequently, the Court dismissed the condonation petition, finding no sufficient cause for the delay, and rejected the Writ Appeal at the SR stage.
Headnote
A) Limitation Act - Condonation of Delay - Section 5 - Sufficient Cause - Petitioner sought condonation of 418 days delay in filing Writ Appeal citing bereavement, hospitalization of father-in-law, and mistaken belief about alternate remedy before GSTAT - Court held reasons vague and unsupported by material particulars or medical records - Held that petitioner was aware of non-constitution of Tribunal and had already filed Writ Petition, thus alternate remedy plea lacked merit - Delay not condoned (Paras 3-7).
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 Court dismissed the condonation petition (CMP No. 32716 of 2025) and rejected the Writ Appeal at the SR stage, finding no sufficient cause for the delay of 418 days.
Law Points
- Condonation of delay
- sufficient cause
- Section 5 Limitation Act
- 1963
- vague reasons
- lack of medical evidence
- alternate remedy not a valid ground when writ petition already filed
Case Details
2026 LawText (MAD) (01) 160
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 Writ Appeal against a common order of a learned single Judge in a GST matter.
Remedy Sought
Condonation of 418 days delay in filing the Writ Appeal.
Filing Reason
The partner of the firm suffered bereavement, was caring for hospitalized father-in-law, and mistakenly believed an appeal could be filed before GSTAT.
Previous Decisions
The learned single Judge passed a common order dated 09.09.2024 in Writ Petition No. 7051 of 2024 (and other petitions) dismissing the challenge to the first appellate order for the period 2017-18.
Issues
Whether the reasons for delay of 418 days constitute 'sufficient cause' under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that the delay was due to bereavement, hospitalization of father-in-law, and mistaken belief about alternate remedy before GSTAT.
Respondent opposed condonation, contending that reasons were vague and unsupported by evidence.
Ratio Decidendi
For condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the applicant must provide credible and specific reasons supported by material evidence. Vague assertions and reliance on an alternate remedy that the petitioner was already aware of do not constitute sufficient cause.
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.
In such circumstances, we find no merit in the reference to the alternate remedy before the GSTAT.
The petitioner was well aware that the remedy as against the assessment would be before this Court and had hence filed the Writ Petition.
Procedural History
The petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 7051 of 2024 challenging a first appellate order under the TN GST Act. The learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition on 09.09.2024. The petitioner then filed a Writ Appeal on 26.11.2025 along with a petition to condone the delay of 418 days. 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
