Facts of the Case

The petitioner, Anilkumar (GSTIN 33AJQPP4461M1ZM), challenged an assessment order dated 17.12.2024 passed by the State Tax Officer for periods 2020-21 to 2023-24, confirming a demand of Rs. 64,65,506 including interest and penalty, and sought a refund of tax the petitioner alleged was collected forcibly. The order followed notices in Forms DRC-01A and DRC-01, to which the petitioner had replied and had also attended a personal hearing, but claimed the reply was not considered before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether the impugned assessment order, passed after a detailed personal hearing and consideration of the reply, was vitiated by violation of natural justice.
  2. Whether the writ petition, filed after the normal appeal-limitation period had lapsed, could still be entertained, and on what terms.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • The petitioner's reply dated 10.10.2024 had not been properly considered, rendering the impugned order arbitrary and violative of natural justice.

Respondent's Arguments

  • The impugned order was a detailed, speaking order that did consider the petitioner's reply and the submissions made at the personal hearing that preceded it.
  • Relying on Singh Enterprises v. CCE and CCE and Customs v. Hongo India (P) Ltd., the petitioner was not entitled to a statutory appeal given the time already lapsed.

Court Order / Findings

  • Considering that the writ petition itself was filed after the ordinary appeal-limitation period had expired, the Court found the petitioner had, in effect, slept over the statutory remedy under Section 107.
  • Instead of the ordinary 10% pre-deposit under Section 107, the Court directed the petitioner to deposit 20% of the confirmed tax as a condition to belatedly avail the appellate remedy, with the appellate authority to decide the appeal on merits without reference to limitation.
  • The writ petition itself was dismissed, but with this liberty; failure to comply would allow the department to proceed as if no liberty had been granted.

Important Clarification

  • Where a taxpayer approaches the writ court well after the ordinary appeal-limitation window has closed, without a strong natural-justice ground, courts may decline to interfere on merits but can still craft an equitable route back into the statutory appeal mechanism by enhancing the pre-deposit condition (e.g., 20% instead of the usual 10%) rather than leaving the assessee remediless.
  • A detailed, reasoned assessment order that records consideration of the assessee's reply and personal-hearing submissions is unlikely to be interfered with on a bare allegation that the reply was not considered.

Sections Involved

  • Section 106, CGST Act, 2017 – provisions on rectification/rounding referenced regarding the petitioner having 'slept over' remedies.
  • Section 107, CGST Act, 2017 – statutory appeal and the standard 10% pre-deposit requirement, enhanced here to 20%.
  • Forms GST DRC-01A and DRC-01 – pre-notice intimation and formal show-cause notice preceding the assessment.

Decision – In Favour of

The decision is disposed of with directions, largely in favour of the department on merits — the writ was dismissed and the order not quashed — but the petitioner was granted a conditional route to a belated statutory appeal on enhanced pre-deposit terms.

Case Details

Court: Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court — Case No.: W.P(MD)No.15949 of 2025 — Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice C. Saravanan — Date of Order: 13 June 2025.

Link to Download the Order

Click here to view/download the full order

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.