Tvl.Jp Exports vs. The Commercial Tax Officer / The State Tax Officer
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Tvl. JP Exports, represented by its Proprietor Jayaprakash, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 30.01.2026 passed by the Commercial Tax Officer/State Tax Officer, Madurai Assessment Circle, under Section 73 of the GST enactments. This order confirmed a demand proposed in a Show Cause Notice dated 23.06.2025, for the tax period 2024-25, in the absence of a reply from the petitioner. A consequential summary order in GST DRC-07 was also challenged. The petitioner had paid Rs. 35,00,000/- out of a total demand of Rs. 63,53,464/-. The writ petition was filed on 03.08.2026, after the limitation period for filing an appeal under Section 107 of the GST enactments had expired, including the period for condonation of delay.
Held
The Court decided to grant liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (ST) Appeal (GST), Madurai. This relief was granted subject to the petitioner depositing 25% of the balance amount of the disputed tax, as confirmed by the impugned order, within thirty days of receiving a copy of the Court's order. The Court directed that if the petitioner files the appeal along with the pre-deposit within the stipulated time, the Appellate Authority shall consider and dispose of the appeal on its merits and in accordance with law, expeditiously, preferably within three months, without further reference to the limitation period. The Court also stipulated that if the petitioner fails to comply with these conditions, the respondents are at liberty to proceed for recovery as if the writ petition was dismissed. The Appellate Authority is required to provide due notice to the petitioner before passing any order.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioner should be granted liberty to file an appeal before the Appellate Authority, despite the expiry of the statutory limitation period for filing such an appeal under Section 107 of the GST enactments? The petitioner argued that they had already remitted a significant portion of the demand and were willing to deposit 25% of the remaining disputed tax. They sought liberty to file an appeal before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (ST) Appeal (GST), Madurai, and requested that the appeal be considered on merits without reference to the limitation period. The petitioner relied on the fact that they had made substantial pre-deposits. The revenue did not record any specific arguments against granting liberty to appeal, but the court's decision implies consideration of the petitioner's submissions and the circumstances presented.
Sections Cited
Section 73, Section 107
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Before: and
M/s.P.Sudarkodi Natchiyar, learned Government Advocate (Tax), takes notice for the respondent.
This Writ Petition is taken up for final hearing at the time of admission with the consent of the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Advocate (Tax) for the respondent.
In this Writ Petition, the petitioner has challenged the Impugned Order dated 30.01.2026 bearing reference in Ref. No. ZD330126207188N/2024-25 passed under Section 73 of the respective GST enactments, 2017, for the tax period 2024-25 and consequential Summary Order in GST DRC 07 dated 30.01.2026, whereby the demand proposed in the Show Cause Notice in DRC-01 dated 23.06.2025 has been confirmed in absence of the reply from the petitioner. 2/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
It is noticed that the limitation for filing an appeal under Section 107 of the respective GST enactments, 2017, against the Impugned Order has expired on 29.04.2026 and the further period for condonation of delay has also expired on 28.05.2026. This Writ Petition has been filed only on 03.08.2026. 5. At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the total demand that was proposed in the aforesaid Show Cause Notice in DRC-01 dated 23.06.2025 was a sum of Rs.63,53,464/- (Rs.31,76,732/- x 2 towards the respective GST enactments).
He further submits that on 23.12.2025, that is, before the Impugned Order was passed, the petitioner had also remitted a sum of Rs.35,00,000/- (Rs. 17,50,000/- x 2 towards the respective GST enactments). Thus, the balance amount that remains to be paid is Rs.28,53,464/- (Rs.14,26,732/- x 2 towards respective GST enactments).
The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner will be satisfied if liberty is given to the petitioner to file an appeal. The learned 3/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis counsel for the petitioner has also made an endorsement to that effect in the Court Bundle, which is extracted hereunder:- “The petitioner undertakes to pay 25% of Tax demand.”
In view of the above, I am inclined to come to the rescue of the petitioner by granting liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal before the Appellate Commissioner subject to the petitioner depositing 25% of the balance amount of the disputed tax as confirmed by the Impugned Order within a period of thirty (30) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Since the relief is being granted to the petitioner is to be considered by the Appeallate Deputy Commissioner (ST) Appeal (GST), Madurai, the said Officer is suo motu impleaded as the second respondent. M/s.P.Sudarkodi Natchiyar, learned Government Advocate (Tax), takes notice for the second respondent.
Within such time, in case the petitioner files such an appeal before the 4/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Appellate Authority/second respondent together with the said deposit, the Appellate Authority shall consider and dispose of the same on merits and in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of three (3) months of such appeal / pre-deposit without further reference to the limitation.
In case the petitioner fails to comply with any of the above stipulations, the respondents are at liberty to proceed against the petitioner to recover the tax in accordance with law as if this Writ Petition was dismissed in limine today.
Needless to state, before passing any such order, the second respondent shall give due notice to the petitioner.
This Writ Petition is disposed of, with the above observations. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Index : Yes / No 05.08.2026 Internet : Yes / No apd 5/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.SARAVANAN, J.
apd To 1. The Commercial Tax Officer / The State Tax Officer, Madurai Assessment Circle, Madurai.
The Appeallate Deputy Commissioner (ST) Appeal (GST), Madurai.
2026 6/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Reproduced from the public record of the Madras High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.