Facts of the Case

Tvl. Balakrishnan & Co-Arull Ayyanar Rice Mill challenged an order dated 27.02.2025 (GSTIN 33BOLPS7406G1ZR/2020-2021, Form GST DRC-07 reference ZD330225282129G) passed for the tax period April 2020-March 2021. The order followed a show-cause notice in Form GST DRC-01 dated 25.11.2024, to which the petitioner had submitted replies on 31.01.2025, 04.02.2025 and 26.02.2025, and a speaking order had been passed considering those replies, though the petitioner contended certain aspects of its reply were not considered. By the time the petitioner approached the High Court, the condonable period for filing a statutory appeal under Section 107 had already expired on 26.06.2025, and the writ petition itself was filed with a marginal delay of 28 days beyond that.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether a writ petition can be entertained to bypass the statutory appellate remedy where the assessment order suffers from no demonstrable procedural irregularity.
  2. Whether liberty to file a time-barred statutory appeal can be granted in equity where the delay beyond the condonable period is marginal.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • Certain aspects of the petitioner's reply had not been considered while passing the speaking order, and the petitioner wished to work out its remedy before the appellate forum under Section 107.

Respondent's Arguments

  • An appeal at this distant point of time was impermissible since the condonable period for filing the appeal had expired on 26.06.2025; the petitioner was left without any statutory remedy and the writ petition was liable to be dismissed.

Court Order / Findings

  • The Court held that the writ petition, insofar as it challenged the impugned order on merits, was liable to be dismissed since there were no procedural irregularities in the decision-making process — the request to bypass the statutory limitation regime for appeals could not be entertained in view of the Supreme Court's decisions in Singh Enterprises v. CCE, (2008) 3 SCC 70, and CCE and Customs v. Hongo India (P) Limited, (2009) 5 SCC 791.
  • However, considering that the petitioner might have a case on the merits of its reply, and that the delay in approaching the Court beyond the condonable appeal period was only marginal (28 days), the Court granted liberty to file an appeal within 15 days, to be entertained without reference to limitation.
  • As a condition, the petitioner was directed to pay Rs.5,000/- as costs to the Women Advocate Association, failing which the appeal would not be numbered; on compliance and pre-deposit under Section 107, the Appellate Commissioner was directed to number and dispose of the appeal on merits.

Important Clarification

  • A writ court will not readily substitute itself for the statutory appellate mechanism under Section 107 merely because an assessee alleges its reply was not fully considered, where no independent procedural irregularity is shown — the Singh Enterprises/Hongo India line of authority bars condonation of delay beyond the statutory outer limit through Section 107 itself.
  • Nonetheless, where the delay is marginal and the assessee may have a case on merits, courts can use their equitable writ jurisdiction to grant a fresh, short window to file the statutory appeal (subject to costs and the mandatory pre-deposit), effectively achieving what Section 107 itself could not permit.

Sections Involved

  • Section 107, TNGST/CGST Act, 2017 – appeal to the Appellate Authority, including the pre-deposit requirement and the outer limit for condonation of delay.

Decision – In Favour of

Disposed of with directions; substantially in favour of the Department on the merits challenge, but with equitable relief (liberty to appeal on payment of costs) extended to the assessee.

Case Details

  • Court: Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
  • Case No.: W.P(MD) No. 20458 of 2025 and W.M.P(MD) Nos. 15846 & 15847 of 2025
  • Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice C. Saravanan
  • Date of Order: 28 July 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.