Tvl.Arun Traders vs. The Union Of INDIA
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Tvl. Arun Traders, filed a writ petition challenging a GST notification dated 28.12.2023, a State Government Order dated 02.01.2024, and an assessment order dated 18.04.2024 for the tax period 2018-2019, passed by the State Tax Officer. The petitioner had previously filed an appeal against the assessment order on 16.08.2024 before the appellate authority. However, this appeal was dismissed on 30.01.2025 due to the petitioner's failure to comply with the mandatory pre-deposit requirement under Section 107(6) of the CGST Act, 2017. The petitioner then filed the present writ petition without challenging the appellate authority's dismissal order.
Held
The Court acknowledged that the petitioner's failure to deposit the pre-deposit amount at the time of filing the appeal was due to inadvertence. In the interest of justice, the Court directed the petitioner to deposit the required pre-deposit amount within two weeks of receiving the order. Upon receipt of this payment, the appellate authority was instructed to restore the appeal on its file. The appellate authority was further directed to pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law, after providing the petitioner with a due opportunity of hearing, within three months from the date of restoration. The writ petition was disposed of with these directions, and no order as to costs was made.
Key Issues
1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable when an appeal against the impugned assessment order has already been dismissed by the appellate authority for non-compliance with the pre-deposit requirement under Section 107(6) of the CGST Act, 2017, and the dismissal order has not been challenged. Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the dismissal of their appeal by the appellate authority on 30.01.2025 was due to inadvertence in not paying the 10% pre-deposit amount at the time of filing the appeal. They contended that the appellate authority rejected the appeal without providing sufficient opportunity of hearing, violating principles of natural justice. Therefore, they prayed for the appellate authority to restore the appeal upon payment of the pre-deposit amount and to dispose of it within a stipulated time. Revenue's contention: The respondents argued that the petitioner had already filed an appeal against the assessment order, which was dismissed by the appellate authority for non-compliance with the mandatory pre-deposit requirement. Since the petitioner did not challenge this dismissal order and instead filed the present writ petition challenging the original notification, G.O., and assessment order, the writ petition is not maintainable.
Sections Cited
Section 107(6), Section 168A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Before: and
This writ petition has been filed challenging Notification No.56/2023- Central Tax, issued by the first respondent on 28.12.2023, G.O.(Ms)No.1 of the Commercial Taxes and Registration (B1) Department, issued by the third respondent on 02.01.2024 and the assessment order passed by the fifth respondent on 18.04.2024, for the Assessment Year 2018–2019. 2. Today, when the matter was taken up for hearing, Mr.J.K.Jayaselan, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 3 to 5 submitted that against the assessment order dated 18.04.2024, passed by the fifth respondent for the Assessment Year 2018–2019, the petitioner had already preferred an appeal before the appellate authority on 16.08.2024. The said appeal was dismissed by the appellate authority on 30.01.2025, due to non-compliance of mandatory pre- deposit requirement as prescribed under Section 107(6) of the CGST Act, 2017. Without challenging the said order, the petitioner has now filed the present writ petition seeking to quash Notification No.56/2023-Central Tax, issued by the first respondent on 28.12.2023, G.O.(Ms)No.1 of the Commercial Taxes and Registration (B1) Department, issued by the third respondent on 02.01.2024 and ____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis the assessment order passed by the fifth respondent on 18.04.2024, for the Assessment Year 2018–2019. Therefore, the present writ petition is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed.
At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, aggrieved by the impugned assessment order passed by the fifth respondent on 18.04.2024 for the Assessment Year 2018-2019, had filed an appeal on 16.08.2024 before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (ST), Goods and Services Tax, Trichy and Vellore Division. However, 10% of the pre-deposit amount was not paid to the Department at the time of filing the appeal due to inadvertence. Therefore, the second respondent passed a rejection order on 30.01.2025, stating that the pre-deposit amount was not paid by the petitioner as required under Section 107(6) of the GST Act, without providing sufficient opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, which is in gross violation of principles of natural justice. Therefore, it is prayed that the appellate authority be directed to restore the appeal on file upon payment of the pre-deposit amount and to dispose of the appeal within a time frame as fixed by this Court. ____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Heard both sides.
After considering the submissions of both parties, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner's failure to deposit the pre-deposit amount at the time of filing the appeal was due to inadvertence. In the interest of justice, the petitioner is directed to deposit the required pre-deposit amount within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Upon receipt of such payment, the appellate authority is directed to restore the appeal on file and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law, after giving due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, within a period of three months thereafter.
This Writ Petition stands disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. NCC : Yes / No
2025 Index : Yes / No smn2 ____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis To:- 1.The Secretary, Union of India, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, No.137, North Block, New Delhi-110 001. 2.The Chairman, Goods and Services Tax Council, GST Council Secretariat, 5th Floor, Tower II, Jeevan Bharti Building, Janpath Road, Connaught Place, New Delhi – 110001. 3.The Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Commercial Taxes and Registration Department, Secretariat, Fort St. George, Chennai – 600009. 4.The Principal Secretary/Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Commercial Taxes Department, Ezhiligam, Chepauk, Chennai- 600 005. 5.The State Tax Officer, Pattukottai 1 Assessment Circle, Pattukottai - 614 601. ____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis VIVEK KUMAR SINGH
, J.
smn2
2025 ____________ 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.