Maruti Novelty Vs State Tax Officer (Madras High Court)
The Madras High Court heard a writ petition challenging an order dated 25.02.2025 issued in Form GST DRC-07 for the tax period 2021-2022. The impugned order confirmed the proposal contained in the Show Cause Notice dated 29.11.2024. The petitioner had filed a reply in Form GST DRC-06 on 20.02.2025 before the order was passed.
The Court observed that the petitioner ought to have filed an appeal under Section 107 of the GST enactments within the prescribed limitation period. However, no appeal was filed within time, and the writ petition itself was filed on 19.01.2026, after expiry of the statutory limitation period.
Referring to the Supreme Court decision in Commr. (CT), LTU, Kakinada v. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Ltd., the High Court noted that the limitation period prescribed for filing an appeal cannot be extended. Consequently, the writ petition was liable to be dismissed.
At that stage, the petitioner sought liberty to file an appeal subject to conditions. Considering that the petitioner may have a case on merits, the Court granted liberty to file an appeal before the Appellate Authority, subject to payment of 25% of the disputed tax confirmed by the impugned order within 30 days from receipt of the Court’s order.
