IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 05.12.2025

CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN

and

W.M.P.Nos.51551 & 51552 of 2025

Tvl.Santhi Sarees

Represented by its Sole Proprietor

Mr.Elangovan Mathialazhagan

No.116-117, Gandhi Road

Kancheepuram, Tamil Nadu 631 502. ... Petitioner

Vs.

1.Assistant Commissioner (ST)(FAC)

Kancheepuram Rural Assessment Circle

C T Building, First Floor, Collectorate Campus

Kancheepuram 631 501.

2.The Deputy Commissioner (ST) (GST)

GST-Appeals, Chennai -I

3^rd Floor, Annexe Building

Greams Road, Chennai 600 006. ... Respondents

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the order dated 01.09.2024 issued in Form GST DRC-07 bearing Reference No.ZD330924000015Z and to direct the Appellate Authority (Respondent 2) to condone the delay of 443 days in filing the

appeal and to hear the dispute on merits.

For Petitioner : Mr.C.BOSCO For Respondents : Ms.Amirtha Poonkodi Dinakaran Government Advocate

ORDER

Ms.Amirtha Poonkodi Dinakaran, learned Government Advocate takes notice for the Respondents.

2. This Writ Petition is being disposed of at the stage of admission itself with the consent of the learned counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Government Advocate for the Respondent.

3. The petitioner is before this Court against the impugned order dated 01.09.2024 in DRC-07 for the tax period 2019-2020 passed under Section 73 of the respective GST enactments by the first respondent which preceded a Show Cause Notice in DRC-01 dated 13.05.2024 to which the Petitioner filed a reply on 12.06.2024 in DRC-06 along with annexures.

4. The petitioner ought to have filed an appeal against the impugned before the Appellate Authority within the time stipulated under Section 107 of the respective GST Enactments.

5. It is noticed that the limitation for filing an appeal under Section

107 of the respective GST enactments, 2017 against the impugned Order has already expired. The present Writ Petition has been filed only on 25.11.2025.

6. The petitioner has now approached this Court against the impugned order purportedly on the ground that the petitioner was unaware of the impugned order and that the petitioner became aware of the same only after recovery proceedings were initiated.

7. However, facts on record indicate that petitioner filed an application for rectification of the impugned order on 28.11.2024 which came to be dismissed by the 1^st respondent vide order dated 13.03.2025.

8. Under similar circumstances, Orders have been quashed and cases have been remitted back to pass a fresh order on terms subject to such Assessee depositing 10% to 100% of the disputed tax depending upon the length of delay in approaching the Court. I do not find any reason to take a different view in this case.

9. Following the consistent view taken by this Court under similar circumstances, the case is disposed of by giving liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal against the impugned order before the second respondent subject to the petitioner depositing 50% of the disputed tax within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

10. In case, any amount has been deposited or recovered towards the tax liability against the impugned order over and above 50%, no further amount is required to be pre- deposited by the petitioner. Any amount already recovered shall be adjusted towards the aforesaid condition of pre-deposit of

50%, subject to verification by the respondent.

11. In case, such an appeal by the petitioner is filed within a period of thirty (30) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, the second respondent shall consider the same and dispose the appeal on merits, on its own turn, without further reference to limitation.

12. In case the Petitioner complies with the above stipulations, the 2^nd Respondent shall proceed to pass a final order on merits and in accordance with law as expeditiously a