R Janaki vs. The Commissioner Of CGST Central Excise

Held

The Court decided to grant the petitioner one more opportunity to work out her remedy, subject to strict conditions. The impugned order dated 13.08.2025 was quashed, and the case was remitted back to the second respondent for fresh adjudication. The reasoning was based on the petitioner's submission regarding her husband's death and her willingness to deposit an additional 25% of the disputed tax. The Court emphasized that this was a final opportunity, and no further extensions or concessions would be granted, especially since the demand had already been confirmed by an earlier Order-in-Original. The ratio decidendi is that in exceptional circumstances, particularly where a litigant demonstrates a genuine reason for non-compliance and willingness to meet further financial conditions, a High Court, in its writ jurisdiction, may grant a final chance for adjudication to ensure fairness, even if procedural timelines have been missed. The operative direction was to quash the impugned order, remit the matter, and direct the petitioner to deposit 25% of the disputed tax within 30 days of receiving the order, and also file a reply to the SCN. The second respondent was directed to pass a final order on merits within three months of the reply and pre-deposit, failing which the respondents could recover the tax as if the writ petition was dismissed.

Facts

The petitioner, R Janaki, challenged an order dated 13.08.2025 passed by the Deputy Commissioner (2nd respondent), which was based on a Show Cause Notice (SCN) dated 31.12.2020. The petitioner had not availed the personal hearing offered in the SCN and consequently suffered the impugned order. The limitation period for filing an appeal under Section 107 of the GST enactments had expired, and the present writ petition was filed on 17.08.2026. This was the second round of litigation; an earlier writ petition (W.P.(MD)No.13666 of 2024) was allowed on 26.06.2024, directing the petitioner to deposit 25% of the disputed tax and file a reply within 30 days, with the respondents to pass a final order thereafter. The petitioner's husband, who was conducting the business, died on 18.07.2024, leading to the petitioner's alleged unawareness of subsequent orders. The petitioner claimed to have paid 25% of the disputed tax on 25.11.2024.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner should be granted another opportunity to submit a reply to the Show Cause Notice dated 31.12.2020 and participate in de novo adjudication, despite the expiry of the appeal period and the prior dismissal of a writ petition for non-compliance. The petitioner argued that due to the unfortunate demise of her husband, she was unaware of the previous court order and subsequent proceedings. She contended that she has a fair case and sought one more opportunity to submit a proper reply. The petitioner further offered to pre-deposit an additional 25% of the disputed tax as a condition for fresh adjudication. The respondents, represented by the Senior Standing Counsel, did not record any specific arguments against granting an opportunity, but the court's decision implies consideration of the respondents' position in the context of the petitioner's submissions and the prior history.