Facts of the Case: M/s. Sri Karuppasamy Traders, represented by its proprietor V. Ayyappan, challenged an assessment order dated 27.01.2025 for the assessment year 2020-21, passed following a Show Cause Notice in Form GST DRC-01 dated 25.11.2024 and a personal hearing notice dated 27.12.2024. The petitioner neither filed a reply to the notice nor appeared for the personal hearing, explaining that its accountant had received the notices but failed to inform the petitioner, resulting in an assessment order being passed without the petitioner ever being heard.

Issues Involved:

  1. Whether a writ petition can be entertained against an assessment order where the petitioner failed to avail statutory remedies within time due to its own accountant's lapse.
  2. Whether relief can nonetheless be granted in the interest of justice, and on what conditions.

Petitioner's Arguments:

  • The failure to respond to the notice and attend the personal hearing was attributable solely to the petitioner's Accountant, who received the notices but did not inform the petitioner, resulting in the assessment being passed without a genuine hearing.

Respondent's Arguments:

  • The Government Advocate argued that the petitioner, having failed to avail available remedies within the prescribed time, could not maintain the writ petition, relying on the Supreme Court's decisions in Singh Enterprises v. Commissioner of Central Excise, CCE and Customs v. Hongo India (P) Ltd., and Assistant Commissioner (CT), LTU v. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Ltd.

Court Order / Findings:

  • Balancing the rival submissions, the Court held that the petitioner could be granted a temporary reprieve in the interest of justice, notwithstanding the Department's reliance on limitation-bar precedents.
  • The impugned assessment order was quashed and the matter remitted, subject to the petitioner depositing 25% of the disputed tax amount through the electronic cash ledger within 30 days, and filing a reply to the Show Cause Notice — treating the impugned order as an addendum to that notice — within the same period.
  • On such compliance, the respondent was directed to grant a personal hearing and pass final orders on merits within two months; failure to comply with any condition would allow the respondent to treat the writ petition as if dismissed in limine.

Important Clarification:

  • Even where an assessee's own accountant is responsible for the failure to respond to a GST Show Cause Notice or attend a personal hearing, and the statutory limitation for appeal has expired, a writ court may still grant a conditional temporary reprieve by remitting the matter for fresh consideration — but typically only on payment of a substantial pre-deposit (here 25% of the disputed tax) and a self-executing default clause reviving the original order on non-compliance.

Sections Involved:

  • Section 73/74, GST Act, 2017 — assessment provisions under which the impugned order was passed.
  • Precedents on the limitation bar for approaching writ courts against appealable orders: Singh Enterprises, Hongo India, Glaxo Smith Kline.

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. 23325 of 2025 & W.M.P.(MD) No. 18330 of 2025; Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice C. Saravanan; Date of Order: 26.08.2025.

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.