Case Law Details
Dharun Vs Deputy Commissioner (ST)(GST)(Appeal) (Madras High Court)
The Madras High Court disposed of two writ petitions arising from the second round of litigation concerning GST assessment orders dated 19.11.2025 for the tax periods 2017-18, 2018-19, and 2019-20. The petitioner had filed statutory appeals manually on 16.02.2026 against the assessment orders, which were passed pursuant to an earlier High Court order dated 16.08.2024 remanding the matter for de novo adjudication subject to deposit of 10% of the disputed tax.
The Court recorded that the petitioner had complied with the earlier order and that the disputed tax already deposited had been adjusted against the dues. The petitioner submitted that due to changes in the GST portal architecture, the earlier pre-deposit could not automatically be treated as pre-deposit for filing appeals under Section 107 of the GST enactments. The petitioner referred to the GST appeal manual requiring approval from the competent authority and had therefore submitted a representation dated 16.02.2026 before the Appellate Authority.
The petitioner also relied on the Supreme Court decision in VVF (India) Limited v. State of Maharashtra. The respondents submitted that the representation would be considered on merits. Recording the submission, the High Court directed the Appellate Authority to consider the petitioner’s representation in light of the GST portal appeal manual effective from November 2025 and the Supreme Court decision referred to by the petitioner. The exercise was directed to be completed preferably within thirty days. The writ petitions were disposed of without costs.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Ms. Anitha Poonkodi Dinakaran, learned Government Advocate, takes notice for the Respondents.
2. By this common order, both these Writ Petitions are being disposed of at the time of admission with the consent of the learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned Government Advocate for the Respondents.
3. This is the second round of litigation.
4. The Petitioner has filed statutory appeals before the 1st respondent/Appellate Authority manually on 16.02.2026 against the assessment orders dated 19.11.2025 passed in Form GST ORC-07 for the tax periods 201718, 2018-19 and 2019-20. These assessment orders were passed pursuant to the order dated 16.08.2024 of this Court in W.P.No.15366 of 2021 and W.P.No.15363 of 2021.
5. By the order dated 16.08.2024, the case was remitted back to the original authority for de novo adjudication, subject to the Petitioner depositing 10% of the disputed tax. There is no dispute that the petitioner has complied with the said order of the Writ Court, pursuant to which the aforesaid assessment orders dated 19.11.2025 have been passed.
6. The amount of disputed tax pre-deposited by the Petitioner in compliance with the order dated 16.08.2024 of the Writ Court has been appropriately adjusted and the balance amount has been shown as due from the Petitioner for the respective tax periods.
8. The learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that there has been a slight change in the architecture of the GST portal, due to which the Petitioner is unable to treat the amount pre-deposited pursuant to the aforesaid order dated 16.08.2024 of this Court as pre-deposit for the purpose of filing an appeal under Section 107 of the respective GST Enactments.
9. Specifically, the learned counsel for the Petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to an extract from the appeal manual in the GST portal, according to which the Petitioner is required to obtain approval from the competent authority. Hence, the Petitioner has submitted a representation dated 16.02.2026 in the light of the appeal filed on the same date against the de novo assessment orders dated 19.11.2025 for the respective tax periods.
10. The learned counsel for the Petitioner would further submit that the issue is no longer res integra, as it is covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in VVF (India) Limited Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, (2022) 13 Supreme Court Cases 644.
11. The learned counsel for the Respondents, on the other hand, would submit that the Petitioner’s representation will be considered on merits and disposed of accordingly.
12. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the Petitioner and the learned counsel for the Respondents.
13. Recording the aforesaid submission of the learned counsel for the Respondent, 1st Respondent/Appellate Authority is directed to consider the aforesaid representation dated 16.02.2026 of the Petitioner for the appeals dated 16.02.2026 in the light of the appeal manual in the GST portal, as in force with effect from November 2025, which mandates obtaining approval from the Appellate Authority for deposit of a lower percentage of the amount.
14. While passing such orders, the Respondents shall take into account the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court referred to supra. The said exercise shall be completed by the 1st respondent/Appellate Authority as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of thirty days from today.
15. These Writ Petitions are disposed of with the above observations. No costs.
Author Bio
