D.Balakrishnan vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Central GST And Central Excise

Held

The Court disposed of the writ petition by granting liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal against the impugned order before the appellate authority within thirty days from the date of receipt of the order. This liberty was granted subject to the condition that the petitioner deposits 25% of the disputed tax in cash from their Electronic Cash Ledger within the same thirty-day period. The Court directed that if the appeal is filed with the deposit, the Appellate Authority shall number the appeal and dispose of it on merits and in accordance with law, without reference to the limitation period, and as expeditiously as possible. The petitioner was also assured that they would be heard and could raise all available grounds before the Appellate Authority. The issue of condoning the delay was implicitly addressed by allowing the appeal to be filed and considered on merits without reference to limitation, contingent upon the deposit.

Facts

The petitioner, D. Balakrishnan, filed a writ petition before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court challenging an Order-in-Original No.MAD-GST-DG2-AC-05-2025 dated 22.12.2025, passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Central GST and Central Excise. This order was issued after a Show Cause Notice dated 17.09.2025, and the petitioner had failed to appear for a personal hearing. The petitioner sought a direction to the Joint Commissioner of Central GST and Central Excise to allow them to file an appeal against the impugned order by condoning the delay. The petitioner also expressed willingness to pre-deposit 25% of the disputed tax demand.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner should be granted liberty to file an appeal against the impugned order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Central GST and Central Excise, despite the delay, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India? The petitioner argued that they were willing to pursue the appellate remedy and would pre-deposit 25% of the disputed tax demand as a condition for de novo adjudication. The petitioner sought the Court's direction to the appellate authority to consider the appeal on merits without reference to the delay. The respondents, represented by the Senior Standing Counsel, had no objection to the petitioner pursuing the appellate remedy subject to certain conditions.