Tvl.Sri Venkateswara Fuel Station vs. The Commercial Tax Officer/The State Tax Officer (Fac)
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Tvl.Sri Venkateswara Fuel Station, filed a writ petition challenging an assessment order dated 24.11.2025 passed by the respondent, the Commercial Tax Officer/State Tax Officer (FAC), under Section 73 of the GST enactments. The assessment order confirmed a demand raised through DRC-01 dated 10.06.2025 for the tax period April 2021 to March 2022. The petitioner had failed to file an appeal within the prescribed limitation period. During the hearing, the petitioner stated that the entire tax amount had already been recovered. The respondent's counsel could not confirm this. The petitioner then undertook to deposit 25% of the disputed tax if it had not been recovered. The Court, by an order dated 27.07.2026, granted liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal within 30 days of receiving the order, subject to depositing 25% of the disputed tax, after deducting any amount already recovered. The Court also directed that if the amount was already recovered, the pre-deposit requirement would be waived. Subsequently, by an order dated 16.09.2026, the Court directed the bank to lift the attachment of the petitioner's bank account, as the petitioner had paid the amount even before the initial writ petition was disposed of.
Held
The Court held that the petitioner, having failed to file an appeal within the prescribed limitation period, was not automatically entitled to file an appeal out of time. However, following a consistent view taken by the Court in similar circumstances, liberty was granted to the petitioner to file an appeal against the impugned order within thirty (30) days from the date of receipt of the order. This liberty was made subject to the petitioner depositing 25% of the disputed tax in cash from the petitioner's Electronic Cash Register, after deducting any amount already recovered. The Court clarified that the recovery of the tax amount would be subject to verification. Furthermore, if the amount had already been recovered as stated by the petitioner, the requirement of pre-deposit would stand waived. The Appellate Authority was directed to consider the appeal on merits and in accordance with law expeditiously, preferably within three months, without further reference to limitation. The Court also directed the concerned bank to lift the order of attachment of the petitioner's bank account, noting that the petitioner had paid the amount even before the writ petition was disposed of. The operative direction was to allow the petitioner to file an appeal subject to conditions.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioner, having failed to file an appeal within the prescribed limitation period against the assessment order dated 24.11.2025, is entitled to file an appeal out of time under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, given the circumstances of the case? (Question of law and mixed fact and law, turning on Section 107 of the GST enactments and principles of judicial review). Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the entire tax amount had already been recovered. They further submitted an undertaking to deposit 25% of the disputed tax if it had not been recovered. They relied on the consistent view of the High Court in similar circumstances to seek liberty to file an appeal. Respondent's arguments: The respondent's counsel was unable to confirm whether the entire tax amount had been recovered. No other arguments were recorded for the respondent regarding the petitioner's eligibility to file an out-of-time appeal.
Sections Cited
Section 73, Section 107
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORDER M/s.P.Sudarkodi Natchiyar, learned Counsel for State of TN, 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 Counsel for State of TN for the respondent.
The petitioner is before this Court against the impugned Assessment Order bearing reference in Ref.No.ZD331125417263U/ 2021-22 dated 24.11.2025 passed under Section 73 of the respective GST enactments, 2017, by the respondent, whereby the proposal in DRC 01 dated 10.06.2025 issued for the tax period from April 2021 to March 2022 has been confirmed after considering the reply filed by the petitioner.
The petitioner ought to have filed an appeal under Section 107 of respective GST enactments, 2017 within a period of three months or within further period of 30 days with an application for condone the delay. However, the petitioner failed to file an appeal in time and the limitation _____________ Page No. 7 of 11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis has expired long before. As such, this Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed.
At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the entire tax amount has already been recovered by the respondent.
However, the learned Counsel for State of TN for the respondent is unable to confirm the same.
The learned counsel for the petitioner therefore, submits that the petitioner is willing to deposit 25% of the disputed tax, in case recovery has not been made by the respondent. Further, he has also made an endorsement to that effect in the Court Bundle, which is extracted hereunder:-
“The petitioner hereby undertakes to pay 25% of the disputed tax if it is not recovered so far.”
Hence, by following consistent view taken by this Court under the similar circumstances, this Court is inclined to give a liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal against the Impugned Order within a period of _____________ Page No. 8 of 11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis thirty (30) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, subject to the petitioner depositing 25% of the disputed tax in cash from the petitioner's Electronic Cash Register as confirmed by the Impugned Order, after deducting the amount already recovered. The recovery of the tax amount shall be subject to verification.
Needless to state, incase the amount has already been recovered as stated by the petitioner, the requirement of pre-deposit shall stand waive.
In case the petitioner complies with the above stipulations, the Appellate Authority concerned shall consider the appeal and dispose of on merits and in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of three (3) months of such appeal, without further reference to the limitation.
In case the petitioner fails to comply with any of the stipulations, the respondent is at liberty to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law as if this Writ Petition was dismissed in limine today. _____________ Page No. 9 of 11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Needless to state, before passing any such order, the Appellate Authority concerned shall give due notice to the petitioner.
This Writ Petition stands disposed of, with the above observations. No costs. Consequently, connected Writ Miscellaneous Petition is closed. Index : Yes / No 27.07.2026 Internet : Yes / No apd To 1. The Commercial Tax Officer/the State Tax Officer (FAC) Aruppukottai Assessment Circle, Commercial Taxes Building, Opposite to CSI Church Madurai Road Aruppukottai, Virudhunagar. 2.The Appellat Deputy Commissioner (GST) 4th floor, Commercial Taxes Buildings, Dr.SVKS Thangaraj Salai, Madurai – 625020. _____________ Page No. 10 of 11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.SARAVANAN, J.
apd W.P.(MD) No. 20943 of 2026 27.07.2026 _____________ Page No. 11 of 11 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.