Facts of the Case

M/s Butyful Products and Services Private Ltd. (GSTIN 33AACCB5134B1ZF) filed an appeal against an assessment order dated 25.01.2025 (Ref. No. ZD330125230635R) passed under Section 73 of the TNGST Act, 2017 in Form GST DRC-07. The appellate authority, by order dated 03.07.2025 (Ref. No. ZD3307250277657) in Form GST APL-02, dismissed the appeal solely on the ground that it was filed beyond the limitation period prescribed under Section 107 of the TNGST Act. The petitioner challenged this rejection by way of a writ petition, contending that the underlying assessment order itself was cryptic, non-speaking and passed without affording the personal hearing contemplated under Section 75(4) of the TNGST Act, and sought a direction that the assessing authority pass a fresh order after such hearing.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether an appellate authority's rejection of a GST appeal solely on the ground of delay should be interfered with in writ jurisdiction where the delay is marginal and the appellant has arguable points on merits.
  2. Whether the appellate authority ought instead to have numbered the appeal and examined it on its merits, including the alleged denial of personal hearing at the assessment stage.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • The underlying assessment order was cryptic, non-speaking, illegal, arbitrary and passed wholly without jurisdiction, and without the personal hearing mandated under Section 75(4) of the TNGST Act.
  • The delay in filing the appeal against the assessment order was only marginal and did not warrant an outright rejection without examining the merits.

Respondent's Arguments

  • The Government Advocate appearing for the respondents supported the appellate authority's order, on the footing that the appeal had correctly been dismissed as it was filed beyond the period of limitation prescribed under Section 107 of the TNGST Act.

Court Order / Findings

  • The Court, after hearing both sides, found that the delay in filing the appeal was rather marginal, and further found that the petitioner had arguable points to canvass before the appellate authority.
  • Balancing these two factors, and in the interest of justice, the Court held that the technical rejection on limitation should not foreclose the petitioner's substantive challenge to the assessment order.
  • The appellate authority's order dated 03.07.2025 dismissing the appeal on limitation was accordingly quashed, with a specific direction to number the appeal and dispose of it on merits and in accordance with law, rather than the writ Court itself adjudicating the underlying tax dispute.

Important Clarification

  • Where the delay in filing a statutory GST appeal under Section 107 is marginal and the appellant has genuine arguable grounds — including an alleged denial of personal hearing under Section 75(4) at the assessment stage — writ courts may quash a limitation-based rejection and direct the appellate authority itself to number and decide the appeal on merits, rather than deciding the underlying dispute in writ jurisdiction.

Sections Involved

  • Section 107, TNGST Act, 2017 — appeal to the appellate authority and the prescribed limitation period for filing such appeals.
  • Section 75(4), TNGST Act, 2017 — mandatory opportunity of personal hearing before an adverse assessment order.
  • Section 73, TNGST Act, 2017 — determination of tax not paid or short paid other than by fraud, under which the original assessment was made.

Decision – In Favour of

The writ petition was allowed in favour of the Assessee, with the limitation-based rejection quashed and the appeal directed to be decided on merits.

Case Details

Court: Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court
Case No.: W.P(MD)No.28020 of 2025
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice G.R. Swaminathan
Date of Order: 09.10.2025

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.