Tvl. Muthamil Selvi Bharath Gas Gramin Vithrak vs. The Deputy Commissioner (CT), GST - Appeals

Held

The Court held that the petitioner should be granted liberty to file an appeal before the Appellate Authority within thirty (30) days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. This liberty was granted subject to the condition that the petitioner makes a pre-deposit of 25% of the disputed tax in cash from their Electronic Cash Register within the stipulated time. If these conditions were complied with, the Appellate Authority was directed to entertain the appeal and decide it on merits, without reference to the limitation period. The Court also noted that if the petitioner failed to comply with any of the stipulations, the respondents would be at liberty to proceed with the recovery of tax as if the writ petition was dismissed in limine. The Court also stated that due notice must be given to the petitioner before any such order is passed by the first respondent. The issue of unfreezing the bank account was not explicitly addressed in the final order but was part of the petitioner's prayer.

Facts

The petitioner, Tvl. Muthamil Selvi Bharath Gas Gramin Vithrak, filed a writ petition before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court challenging an order dated 24.03.2026 passed by the second respondent (State Tax Officer). This order partly rejected the petitioner's application filed under Section 161 of the GST enactments on 12.03.2026, seeking rectification of an earlier order dated 24.12.2025 concerning the tax period 2021-22. The petitioner was aggrieved by the portion of the impugned order that reaffirmed the original decision. The petitioner also noted that the limitation period for filing a statutory appeal had expired. The petitioner sought to quash the impugned order, permit filing a statutory appeal under Section 107 of the CGST/TNGST Acts, condone the delay, and direct the first respondent (Deputy Commissioner, GST Appeals) to entertain and dispose of the appeal on merits after a personal hearing and subject to pre-deposit requirements. Additionally, the petitioner requested the immediate unfreezing of their bank account.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner should be permitted to file a statutory appeal under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, beyond the prescribed limitation period, considering the petitioner was pursuing a remedy under Section 161? The petitioner argued that they should be allowed to file a statutory appeal and that the delay should be condoned, particularly as they were bona fide pursuing a remedy under Section 161. They also offered to deposit 25% of the disputed tax as a condition for entertaining the appeal. The petitioner sought liberty to challenge the impugned order concerning the confirmed demand. The respondents, represented by the Government Advocate (Taxes), stated they had no objection to the petitioner's request.