Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 25956
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J
S.S.Traders Rep by its Proprietor Mr.Ameerkhan – Appellant
Versus
The Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-II – Respondent
W.M.P(MD)No.6138 of 2026|W.P(MD)No.21844 of 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.V.Selva Kumar
For the Respondents: Mr.R.Suresh Kumar Additional Government Pleader
Extension of time for appeal cannot modify prior conditional remand order; requires separate appeal or review.
Headnote:The petitioner sought extension of time under Article 226 to file an appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017, following a prior writ order dated 11.08.2025 remanding the matter on condition of depositing 15% of disputed tax. The court observed non-compliance with the deposit condition and misplacement of the order copy without seeking extension for deposit. The prayer exceeded the prior order's scope, requiring appeal or review instead. The court found no merits in the extension request. Writ Miscellaneous Petition dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petition seeks appeal time extension post-remand with deposit condition. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. non-compliance and improper prayer beyond prior order scope. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. no merits; petition dismissed. (Para 5) |
ORDER
This writ miscellaneous petition is filed to extend the time for two weeks, for preferring an appeal before the appellate authority under Section
107 of the CGST Act, in W.P(MD)No.21844 of 2025 dated 11.08.2025.
2.Upon perusing the affidavit filed in support of the application as well as the order dated 11.08.2025, it can be seen that when the petitioner earlier filed the writ petition an opportunity was given to the petitioner on condition to deposit 15% of the disputed tax amount and the matter stood remanded back to the original authority.
3.It is submitted that the petitioner has not complied with the said condition.
4.Upon perusing the affidavit, the petitioner has only stated that after obtaining the copy of the order, the petitioner has misplaced the copy of the order. Even now, the petitioner is not praying any extension of time to deposit that 15%. The petitioner is submitting that time should be extended for filing appeal. The same is beyond the purview of the order that is passed in W.P(MD)No.21844 of 2025. If the order itself has to be changed, then the petitioner has to file an appeal or a review as the case may be. It cannot be prayed in the guise of an extension of time petition. Further upon reading the affidavit, no meaning could be deciphered for the prayer made.
5.Accordingly, finding no merits, the Writ Miscellaneous Petition stands dismissed.
