SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 22912

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
C. SARAVANAN, J
M/s. Southern Wire Tech Products – Appellant
Versus
The Appellate Authority / The Deputy Commissioner(ST) – Respondent
WMP.Nos.9169 & 9171 of 2026



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.K M Malarmannan
For the Respondents:Mr.S.P.Selvi, Government Advocate

Due process must be observed in administrative penalty cases to avoid excessive imposition.

Headnote:The judgment discusses the application of Section 226 of the Constitution of India, concerning the impugned order which imposed a penalty of Rs.2,46,600. The court found that the petitioner was not provided a proper opportunity to respond to the allegations due to insufficient participation in the appeal. The court remitted the case back to the third respondent to pass a fresh order on merits, subject to specific compliance by the petitioner. The primary issue framed was whether the petitioner had been treated fairly in the imposition of penalty. The court reasoned that due process was not followed leading to an excessive penalty. Ultimately, the court disposed of the petition with instructions for further proceedings regarding the penalty imposed.

Table of Content
1. representation of parties and consent. (Para 2)
2. overview of penalty imposition details. (Para 3 , 4)
3. remittance for fresh order on merits. (Para 5 , 8)
4. regulation of compliance and procedures. (Para 6 , 7)

ORDER

Mr.S.P.Selvi, 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 Respondents.

3. The petitioner is before this Court against the impugned order passed by the 1st Respondent/Appellate Authority, whereby order passed by the third respondent in form GST DRC-07 dated 20.11.2021 has been reversed.

4. By the impugned order, the petitioner has been mulcted with penalty of Rs.2,46,600/- instead of Rs.10,000/- in absence of proper reply. In absence of the petitioner’s participation in the appeal before the first Respondent by second Respondent against the aforesaid order dated 20.11.20221, the penalty that has been imposed against the petitioner for the aforesaid sum of Rs.2,46,600/- is under Section 129 of the respective GST enactments Act, the petitioner is before this Court long after the expiry of the limitation for filing an appeal before the GST Act. Though GST Act has been notified, it is yet to be constituted as functional.

5. Hence, the case is remitted back to the 3rd Respondent to pass a fresh order on merits subject to the Petitioner depositing 10% of the penalty confirmed by the impugned order of the 1st Respondent in cash or from the Petitioner's Electronic Cash Register within a period of thirty (30) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

6. Within such time, the Petitioner shall also file a reply to the Show Cause Notice in GST DRC-01 together with requisite documents to substantiate the case by treating the assessment Order dated 14.12.2023 as an addendum to the Show Cause Notice in DRC-01.

7. In case the Petitioner complies with the above stipulations, the 3rd Respondent shall proceed to pass a fresh order on merits after hearing the petitioner and in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of three (3) months of such reply/pre-deposit. Subject to the Petitioner complying with the above stipulations, the attachment of the bank account of the Petitioner if any, shall also stand automatically vacated.

8. It is made clear that bank attachment shall be lifted subject to the Petitioner depositing 10% the penalty confirmed by the impugned order of the 1st Respondent and the Petitioner not being in arrears of any other amount for any other tax period barring the amount demanded under the impugned Order.

9. In case the Petitioner fails to comply with any of the stipulations, the Respondent is at liberty to proceed against the Petitioner to recover the tax in accordance with law as if this Writ Petition was dismissed in limine today. 10. Needless to state, before passing any such order, the Respondent shall give due notice to the Petitioner.

11. This Writ Petition stands disposed of with the above observations.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top