Rgl Agencies vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)

Held

The Court quashed the impugned order dated 27.10.2025 and remitted the case back to the respondent for fresh adjudication. The Court's decision was based on the petitioner's willingness to deposit 25% of the disputed tax and file a reply to the show cause notice. The reasoning was that the impugned order was passed ex parte, and allowing the petitioner to present their case would serve the interest of justice, provided they complied with the conditions. The ratio decidendi is that in exceptional circumstances, particularly when an ex parte order is passed and the petitioner is willing to comply with financial pre-conditions, a High Court may entertain a writ petition even after the expiry of the appeal period to allow for a fresh adjudication on merits. The operative directions included the petitioner depositing 25% of the disputed tax within 30 days, filing a reply to the show cause notice, and the respondent passing a fresh order on merits within three months. The attachment of the petitioner's bank account was to be vacated upon compliance.

Facts

The petitioner, RGL Agencies, represented by its proprietor Natarajan Ramachandran, filed a writ petition challenging an order in Form DRC-07 dated 27.10.2025, issued by the Assistant Commissioner (ST), Srirangam Assessment Circle. This order was preceded by a Show Cause Notice in Form GST DRC 01 dated 26.05.2025, which also called for a personal hearing. The petitioner did not avail the personal hearing, leading to the ex parte impugned order. The writ petition was filed on 18.08.2026, after the limitation period for filing an appeal under Section 107 of the respective GST enactments had expired. The petitioner sought de novo adjudication, offering to pre-deposit 25% of the disputed tax.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Court should entertain a writ petition when the statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the GST enactments is available but the limitation period has expired? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the impugned order was passed ex parte due to their failure to respond to the show cause notice and personal hearing. They expressed willingness to pre-deposit 25% of the disputed tax for a fresh adjudication. Respondent's contention: The learned Government Advocate (Taxes) for the respondent had no objection to the petitioner's request for de novo adjudication, subject to the stipulated conditions.