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) 40328

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
C. Saravanan, J
Sri Siva Viruthambigai Rep. By its Proprietor, Mr. A. Suresh – Appellant
Versus
The Deputy State Tax Officer II, Virudhachalam – Respondent
WMP.Nos.15912 and 15915 of 2026



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.Poojesh for Mr.Abishek A M
For the Respondents:Mr.V.Prashanth Kiran Government Advocate

Writ court may conditionally remand GST assessment by directing pre-deposit and opportunity to reply instead of quashing ex-parte demand order.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Writ of Certiorari - Goods and Services Tax - Demand and recovery proceedings - Impugned order passed without considering reply to SCN - Remand for fresh consideration subject to pre-deposit of 25% disputed tax and full late fee within stipulated period.

(B) Judicial Review - Conditional Remand - Procedural Fairness - Opportunity to file reply to SCN - Attachment of bank account to stand vacated upon compliance - Liberty to revenue to proceed in case of non-compliance.

Facts of the case:
Writ petition filed challenging demand order passed under Section 73 confirming liability for tax, interest and late fee for assessment period 2021-22. Order alleged to have been passed ex-parte without considering reply to SCN dated 16.09.2025. Petitioner consented to conditional deposit and filing of reply.

Findings of Court:
Order passed without proper opportunity to petitioner. Court disposed writ by remanding matter for fresh consideration directing deposit of 25% disputed tax and entire late fee, with liberty to revenue to proceed upon non-compliance.

Issues: Whether impugned order should be set aside as passed without opportunity; whether conditional remand appropriate with pre-deposit requirement.

Ratio Decidendi: Writ court entitled to pass conditional orders of remand directing pre-deposit and opportunity to reply before setting aside ex-parte assessment orders.

Result: Writ petition disposed of with direction for fresh order on merits subject to pre-deposit and compliance.

Table of Content
1. facts of the case involving gst demand order passed without reply (Para 1 , 4)
2. partial waiver of late fee based on previous court decision regarding annual returns (Para 5)
3. petitioner's consent to pre-deposit 25% tax and full late fee (Para 6 , 7)
4. remand for fresh order after compliance with deposit and reply filing (Para 8 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 14)

ORDER

Mr. V.Prashanth Kiran, the learned Government Advocate, takes notice on behalf of the Respondent.

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

15.11.2025, thereby the following demand has been confirmed.

Summary of Liability for 2021-22

4. The impugned Order has been passed in the absence of the reply to the Show Cause Notice in DRC 01 dated 16.09.2025 issued for the tax assessment period April 2021-March 2022.

5. A Perusal of the Summary of Liability for 2021-22 as extracted above indicates that the Petitioner has no case in so far as challenged to the payment of late fee in terms of the decision of this Court in Ms.Kandan Hardware Mart Vs. The Assistant Commissioner (ST)(FAC) in W.P.No.27029 of 2023 vide order dated 02.01.2026. Operative portion of the said order reads as under:-

“205. The Division Bench of the Himachal Pradesh High Court in the case of M/s.R.T.Pharma Vs. Union of India and others, while dealing with a similar issue arising out of delay in filing of the “Annual Returns” in GSTR-9 under Section 39 of the respective GST Enactments held that it would be unjust to deny a “Late Fee”, waiver to a taxpayer who filed their Goods and Services Tax (GST) Annual Returns (GSTR-9 and GSTR-9C) before a specific Amnesty Notification was issued in Notification No.7/2023-Central Tax dated 31.03.2023, and was amended by Notification No.25/2023-Central Tax dated 17.07.2023

206. Therefore, the benefit of the above Notifications namely Notification No.7/2023- Central Tax dated 31.03.2023 as amended by Notification No.25/2023-Central tax dated 17.07.2023 has to be extended to all those Petitioners in Table – 4A who had filed the returns before 01.04.2023.

207. Since these Petitioners are liable to pay “Late Fee”, the question of imposing “General Penalty” under Section 125 of the respective GST Enactments cannot be countenanced in view of the reasons that “General Penalty” under Section 125 of the respective GST Enactments can be imposed only in the absence of ‘any other penalty’ under the respective GST Enactments.

208. It is therefore held that the Petitioners in Table-4A are neither liable for “Late Fee” over and above Rs.10,000/- under each of the respective GST Enactments nor liable for “General Penalty” under Section 125 of the respective GST Enactments.

209. As far as the case of Petitioners in Table-4B namely the Petitioners in W.P.No.19967 of 2023 and W.P.Nos.23356, 30854, 9867 of 2024 and W.P.Nos.47726, 38007, 48941 of 2025 are concerned, they have been subjected to only “Late Fee” under Section 47(2) of the respective GST Enactments. They have not been subjected to “General Penalty” under Section 125 of the respective GST Enactments.

210. Since these Petitioners have also filed the “Annual Returns” before 01.04.2023, they cannot be subjected to “Late Fee” over and above Rs.10,000/- under each of the respective GST Enactments as ordered in the case of those Petitioners in Table-4A

211. As far as the case of Petitioner in Table-4C namely the Petitioner in W.P.No.3915 of 2024 is concerned, the said Petitioner has filed the “Annual Return” only on 19.01.2024 for the Tax Period 2020-2021. It was within the time under Section 44(2) of the respective GST Enactments as the said date would have expired on 31.12.2024. However, there is no scope for granting any waiver from payment of “Late Fee” under section 47 of the respective GST Enactments, as it was lon

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