Case Law Details
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.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Mr. TNC. Kaushik, learned Additional Government Pleader takes notice for the respondents.
2. With the consent of the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents, this writ petition is being disposed of at the time of admission.
3. The petitioner is before this Court against the impugned order dated 25.02.2025 in Form GST DRC-07 passed for the tax period 2021-2022, whereby the proposal in Show Cause Notice dated 29.11.2024 has been confirmed against the petitioner. . The petitioner had also filed reply in Form GST DE-06 dated on 20.02.2025 to the show cause notice dated 29.11.2024, pursuant to which the impugned order has been passed.
4. The petitioner ought to have filed an appeal against the impugned order under Section 107 of the respective GST Enactments within the prescribed time. However, the petitioner failed to file an appeal in time. The present writ petition has also been filed on 19.01.2026 viz., long after the expiry of the limitation prescribed under Section 107 of the respective GST Enactments.
5. In view of the above, the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed in the light of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Commr.(CT), LTU, Kakinada V. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Ltd., [C.A.No.2413 of 2020, dated 06.05.2020], wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the limitation prescribed under the Act for filing the appeal cannot be extended.
6. At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner may be granted liberty to file an appeal subject to terms.
7. Considering the fact that the petitioner may have a case on merits, liberty is granted to the petitioner to file an appeal before the Appellate Authority, subject to the petitioner depositing 25% of the disputed tax confirmed by the impugned order within 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
8. Needless to state, any amount recovered from the petitioner towards tax liability confirmed by the impugned order against the 25% pre-deposit shall be adjusted.
9. In case the petitioner files such an appeal within such time, the Appellate Authority shall consider the appeal and dispose of the same on merits and in accordance with law without reference to the limitation on its own turn.
10. The writ petition is disposed of with the above observation. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
Author Bio
