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

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 23726

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
C. SARAVANAN, J
M/s.Paras Dyeing and Printing Mills – Appellant
Versus
The Assistant Commissioner (ST) Tiruppur (central-2) Circle – Respondent
WMP Nos.10078 & 10079 of 2026



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: M/s. R. Hemalatha
For the Respondents: Mr. T.N.C. Kaushik, Additional Government Pleader

An appeal against an order may be considered even after the limitation period if the parties submit to denovo adjudication under specific conditions.

Headnote:In this Writ Petition, the petitioner challenges an order dated 27.06.2022 following a Show Cause Notice. The limitation for filing an appeal against this order under Section 107 has expired. The petitioner is willing to deposit 90% of the disputed tax for denovo adjudication. The Writ Petition is disposed of remitting the case back to the respondent for fresh order on merits under stipulated conditions.

Table of Content
1. notice for respondents (Para 1 , 2)
2. challenge on order due to expired limitation (Para 3)
3. willingness to deposit tax for reconsideration (Para 5 , 6 , 8)
4. conditions for fresh order on merits (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12)
5. final decision (Para 13)

ORDER

Mr. T.N.C. Kaushik, learned Additional Government Pleader 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 Additional Government Pleader for the Respondents.

3. In this Writ Petition, the Petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 27.06.2022, which was preceded by a Show Cause Notice in GST DRC-01 dated 30.12.2020, wherein the Petitioner was called upon to appear for personal hearing. However, the Petitioner had not taken advantage of the same and thus, suffered the impugned Order dated 27.06.2022.

4. 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 04.03.2026.

5. At this stage, the learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner is willing to deposit 90% of the disputed tax as a condition for denovo adjudication.

6. The learned counsel for the Petitioner has also made the following endorsement to that effect in the Court bundle which has been extracted hereunder:-

“I am willing to deposit 90% of tax amount.”

7. It is noticed that the Petitioner had already pre-deposited 10% of the disputed tax at the time of filing of an appeal on 24.10.2023.

8. Learned Additional Government Pleader for the Respondents has no objection to remit back the matter before the 1st Respondent for denovo adjudication.

9. Recording the above submissions, the Writ Petition is disposed of, remitting the case back to the 1st Respondent to pass a fresh order on merits subject to the Petitioner depositing 90% of the disputed tax over and above 10% of disputed tax pre-deposited at the time of filing of an appeal, 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.

10. Within such time, the Petitioner shall also file a reply to the Show Cause Notice in GST DRC-01 dated 30.12.2020, together with requisite documents to substantiate the case, by treating the impugned Order dated

27.06.2022 as an addendum to the Show Cause Notice dated 30.12.2020.

11. In case the Petitioner complies with the above stipulations, the Respondents shall proceed to pass a final order on merits and in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of three (3)

months of such reply/pre-deposit.

12. 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, provided that the Petitioner is not in arrears of any other amount for any other tax period, barring the amount demanded under the impugned Order dated 27.06.2022.

13. In case the Petitioner fails to comply with any of the stipulations, the Respondents are 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.

14. Needless to state, before passing any such order, the Respondents shall issue due notice to the Petitioner.

15. 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
whatsapp-icon Back to top