Nayeem Cashews vs. The Superintendent Of CGST And Central Excise
Facts
The petitioner, M/s. Nayeem Cashews, represented by its Proprietor H. Anzar, filed a writ petition before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court. The petitioner challenged an ex-parte order passed by the respondent, the Superintendent of CGST and Central Excise, Marthandham Range, on December 22, 2023. This order was passed under Section 73 of the TNGST Act, 2017, for the period July 2017 to March 2022. The petitioner sought to quash this order, describing it as cryptic, non-speaking, illegal, arbitrary, and without jurisdiction, and requested a fresh assessment order after being given an opportunity to be heard. The appeal period for the impugned order had expired.
Held
The Court acknowledged that the petitioner had suffered an ex-parte order and that the period for filing an appeal had expired. To provide relief, the Court permitted the petitioner to file an appeal within 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. Crucially, the Court directed that this appeal be entertained without reference to the limitation period. As a condition for this leniency, the petitioner was required to pay 10% of the disputed tax amount as a pre-deposit. The Court further stipulated that if the petitioner failed to remit the pre-deposit or file the appeal within four weeks, the benefit granted by this order would stand automatically recalled. The Court disposed of the writ petition with no costs.
Key Issues
1. Whether the ex-parte assessment order dated 22.12.2023, passed by the respondent, is liable to be quashed on the grounds of being cryptic, non-speaking, illegal, arbitrary, and without jurisdiction, thereby violating the principles of natural justice? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner contended that the assessment order was passed ex-parte and suffered from fundamental defects, being cryptic, non-speaking, and lacking proper reasoning. They argued that this violated their right to be heard and that the order was passed without jurisdiction. They sought the quashing of the order and a direction for a fresh assessment after providing an opportunity of being heard. Respondent's Arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondent. However, the court's order implies that the respondent passed the impugned order.
Sections Cited
Section 73
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 10.11.2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN & W.M.P.(MD)Nos.25066 & 25068 of 2025 M/s.Nayeem Cashews, Represented by its Proprietor H.Anzar, GSTIN 33ACZPA767G1ZE, 2/50-55, Kottarathuvilai Kulapuram, Vilavancode, Kanyakumari-629153. ... Petitioner Vs.
The Superintendent of CGST and Central Excise, Marthandam Range 48/1-4, First Floor, Sivaraj Building, Tower Junction, Nagercoil-629001. ... Respondent Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records on the file of the respondent in Order in Original No. GST/ TNVL/ SUPDT/MTM /60/2023 dated 22.12.2023 DIN-20231 259X O0000000A10 for the assessment year July 2017 - March 2022 under section 73 of TNGST Act 2017 and to quash the same as cryptic, non-speaking, illegal , arbitrary, wholly without juri iction and direct the respondent to pass assessment order afresh after affording opportunity of being heard. 1/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
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.