Facts of the Case: M/s. J Soundari suffered an adverse ex parte GST assessment order and filed a statutory appeal against it, along with the mandatory 10% pre-deposit of the disputed tax. However, the appeal was filed 392 days beyond the condonable period and was accordingly rejected by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT) on the ground of limitation, culminating in Form GST APL-02 dated 16.10.2025. The petitioner challenged the appellate rejection before the Madras High Court and, during the hearing, sought to mould the writ prayer to directly challenge the original assessment order instead.

Issues Involved:

  1. Whether the High Court, in exercise of writ jurisdiction, could interfere where the statutory appeal was rejected for a delay as long as 392 days.
  2. Whether relief could nonetheless be granted by permitting a challenge to the original ex parte assessment order itself.

Petitioner's Arguments:

  • The delay in filing the appeal, though substantial, should not deprive the petitioner of a remedy, particularly since the underlying assessment order was passed ex parte.
  • The petitioner sought permission to mould the writ prayer to directly challenge the original assessment order rather than the appellate rejection.

Respondent's Arguments:

  • No separate contest was recorded distinguishing the case on facts; the matter proceeded principally on the Court's own assessment of whether the delay was too substantial to warrant interference.

Court Order / Findings:

  • The Court observed that had the delay been marginal, it would have directed the appellate authority to number and decide the appeal on merits; however, a delay of 392 days was too substantial to warrant such a direction.
  • Accepting the petitioner's request to mould the prayer, and noting that the assessment order had been passed ex parte and that the petitioner had already paid 10% of the disputed tax while filing the appeal, the Court set aside the original assessment order on condition that the petitioner remit a further 15% of the disputed tax (aggregating 25%) through the electronic cash ledger within 30 days.
  • On such compliance, the attachment on the petitioner's ITC account was to be raised, the petitioner would reply to the Show Cause Notice within a further 30 days, and the authority would grant a personal hearing and pass a final order within two months — failing which the benefit of the order would stand automatically recalled.

Important Clarification:

  • Even where a statutory appeal is time-barred well beyond the condonable period, a writ court may still grant conditional relief by permitting a fresh challenge to the underlying ex parte assessment order itself, typically conditioned on a pre-deposit calibrated to what would otherwise have been payable on appeal (here, aggregating to 25% of the disputed tax).

Sections Involved:

  • Section 75(4), TNGST Act, 2017 — mandatory opportunity of personal hearing before passing an adverse order.
  • Form GST APL-02 — order of the Appellate Authority; electronic cash ledger deposit mechanism for pre-deposit.

Decision – In Favour of: Assessee, subject to compliance with the pre-deposit and reply conditions imposed.

Case Details: Madurai Bench of Madras High Court; W.P.(MD) No. 30343 of 2025 & W.M.P.(MD) Nos. 23529 and 23530 of 2025; Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice G.R. Swaminathan; Date of Order: 27.10.2025.

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.