Hd Supply Chain Solutions vs. The State Of Tamil Nadu
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, HD Supply Chain Solutions, represented by the legal heir of its deceased proprietor, challenged an order dated 02.06.2026 passed by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeal). This order rejected the petitioner's appeal, filed on 13.04.2026, against an assessment order dated 12.12.2025, solely on the grounds of limitation. The petitioner's appeal was filed with a marginal delay of one day after the expiry of the prescribed limitation period under Section 107 of the relevant GST enactment. The petitioner had not deposited any amount at the time of filing the appeal. The deceased assessee had participated in the original proceedings, making the assessment order a contested matter.
Held
The Court held that the impugned order dated 02.06.2026, rejecting the petitioner's appeal on the ground of limitation, should be quashed. The appeal is to be restored to the file of the second respondent (Deputy Commissioner (Appeal)). This restoration is conditional upon the petitioner depositing 10% of the disputed tax in cash from the petitioner's Electronic Cash Register within thirty days from the receipt of the order. The Court reasoned that this condition would balance the interests of both the petitioner and the revenue, considering the marginal delay and the contested nature of the assessment. Upon compliance, the second respondent is directed to pass fresh orders on the appeal on merits and in accordance with law, expeditiously, preferably within three months of the deposit. If the petitioner fails to comply, the second respondent can recover the tax as if the writ petition was dismissed. No issue was expressly left undecided.
Key Issues
1. Whether the appeal filed by the petitioner, which was rejected by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeal) on the ground of being filed beyond the limitation period prescribed under Section 107 of the respective GST enactment, should be restored? The petitioner argued that the appeal was filed with a marginal delay of one day and that the deceased proprietor had contested the assessment order. The petitioner sought condonation of this delay and restoration of the appeal for a decision on merits. The respondents, represented by the State of Tamil Nadu, did not present any specific arguments against the restoration of the appeal, but the court's order implies a balancing of interests between the petitioner and the revenue. The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the revenue opposing the petitioner's plea for condonation and restoration.
Sections Cited
Section 107
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Before: and
Mr.R.Parthiban, learned counsel for the State of Tamil Nadu, takes notice for the respondents. 2.By consent, this writ petition is disposed of at the time of admission after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State of Tamil Nadu for the respondents. 3.In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the impugned order passed by the second respondent dated 02.06.2026, whereby the appeal filed 2/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis by the petitioner on 13.04.2026 against the order dated 12.12.2025 has been rejected on the ground of limitation. 4.It is noticed that the petitioner has not deposited any amount at the time of filing the appeal. The petitioner is now represented by a widow and the legal representative of the proprietor of the petitioner firm and the assessment order dated 12.12.2025 is a contested matter, as the deceased assessee had participated in the proceedings. 5.Considering the fact that there is a marginal delay of one day after the expiry of limitation under Section 107 of the respective GST enactment, I am inclined to balance the interest of the petitioner as well as the revenue by quashing the impugned order on restoring the appeal to the file of the second respondent subject to the petitioner depositing 10% of the disputed tax in cash from the petitioner's Electronic Cash Register within a period of thirty (30) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, which was required to be deposited under Section 107 of the respective GST enactment. 6.Subject to the petitioner complying with the above stipulated conditions, the second respondent shall proceed to pass fresh orders on the 3/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis appeal preferred by the petitioner on merits and in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of three (3) months from the date of such deposit. 7.In case, the petitioner fails to comply with any of the conditions stipulated above, the second respondent is 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. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. Index : Yes / No 28.07.2026 Internet : Yes / No mm To 1.The State of Tamil Nadu Through its Secretary Finance Department Secretariat Fort St.George Chennai - 600009 2.The Deputy Commissioner (Appeal) Madurai Camp at Tirunelveli AR Line Road Tirunelveli – 627002 4/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
The Commercial Tax Officer Tuticorin-II Circle 282 A Beach Road C.T. Building Tuticorin - 628001 4.The State Tax Officer Tuticorin-II Circle Tuticorin - 628001 5/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.SARAVANAN, J.
mm
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.