Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 42357
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
C. Saravanan, J
Samruddhi Transcorp Private Limited – Appellant
Versus
Assistant Commissioner (ST) – Respondent
W.M.P.Nos.17365 and 17366 of 2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: V.Janarthanan
For the Respondents: T.N.C.Kaushik
The High Court may exercise its discretionary power to remand a matter for de novo adjudication upon the petitioner's undertaking to pre-deposit a portion of the disputed tax, even after the expiry of the statutory limitation period for filing an appeal.
Headnote:The petitioner challenged an assessment order passed under the GST enactments, having failed to reply to a show cause notice or avail of appellate remedies within the prescribed limitation period. The Court considered the petitioner's offer to deposit 25% of the disputed tax to secure de novo adjudication. The core issue was whether the matter could be remanded for fresh consideration given the failure to participate in the original proceedings. The Court, exercising its discretion, permitted the petitioner to file a reply to the show cause notice and participate in a fresh adjudication, provided a pre-deposit of 25% of the disputed tax is made, thereby balancing the revenue's interest and the opportunity for a fair hearing. The Writ Petition is disposed of with directions to the respondent to pass a fresh order following the stipulated pre-deposit and compliance by the petitioner.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. failure to participate in original proceedings and expiry of appeal period. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. remand of assessment subject to pre-deposit condition. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
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 05.02.2025, which was preceded by a Show Cause Notice in GST DRC-01 dated 25.11.2024 wherein the Petitioner was called upon to file a reply and to appear for a personal hearing. However, the Petitioner did not take advantage of the same and has thus suffered the impugned Order dated
05.02.2025.
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 long before. However, the present Writ Petition has been filed only on
15.04.2026.
5. At this stage, the learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner is willing to pre-deposit 25% of the disputed tax as a condition for denovo adjudication.
6. The learned counsel for the Petitioner has also made an following endorsement to that effect in the Court bundle which has been extracted hereunder:-
“It is submit that I undertake to deposit 25% of tax amount if subject to verification.”
7. Recording the above consent given by the Petitioner, the case is remitted back to the 2nd Respondent to pass a fresh order on merits subject to the Petitioner depositing 25% of the disputed tax 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.
8. Within such time, the Petitioner shall also file a reply to the Show Cause Notice in GST DRC-01 dated 25.11.2024 together with requisite documents to substantiate the case by treating the impugned Order dated
05.02.2025 as an addendum to the Show Cause Notice dated 25.11.2024.
9. In case the Petitioner complies with the above stipulations, the 2nd Respondent 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. 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.
10. Needless to state, any amount recovered from the Petitioner / paid by the Petitioner, towards the tax liability confirmed vide impugned order, shall be adjusted towards the aforesaid pre-deposit of 25% as ordered above. This will be however subject to verification by the Respondents.
11. It is made clear that bank attachment shall be lifted subject to the Petitioner depositing 25% of the disputed tax as ordered above and the Petitioner not being in arrears of any other amount for any other tax period barring the amount demanded under the impugned Order.
12. In case the Petitioner fails to comply with any of the stipulations, the
2nd 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. 13. Needless to state, before passing any such order, the 2nd Respondent shall give due notice to the Petitioner.
14. This Writ Petition stands disposed of with the above observations.
No costs. Connected Writ Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
