Tvl.Altec Fabricators vs. Assistant Commissioner
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Tvl. Altec Fabricators, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 30.08.2024 passed by the Assistant Commissioner under Section 73 of the GST Act. This order followed a show cause notice dated 27.05.2024, to which the petitioner did not reply. The petitioner's subsequent appeal to the Appellate Deputy Commissioner was dismissed on 20.05.2025 due to delay and failure to pre-deposit the required amount under Section 107 of the GST Act. The petitioner had already pre-deposited Rs. 22,45,545 out of a confirmed demand of Rs. 5,23,09,082. The petitioner sought to quash the assessment order after the dismissal of their appeal.
Held
The Court held that a challenge to the impugned order at this "distant point of time" on merits or on account of violation of principles of natural justice could not be countenanced and was liable to be rejected. However, the Court, in similar circumstances, had previously come to the aid of petitioners by imposing terms. Therefore, the Court directed the petitioner to deposit 25% of the disputed tax of Rs. 5,23,09,082 within six months from the date of receipt of the order. Subject to this payment, the impugned order would stand quashed. The petitioner was also directed to file a detailed reply to the show cause notice within 30 days, treating the impugned order as an addendum. The amount already paid would be adjusted towards the 25% deposit. If the conditions were met, the respondents were directed to pass fresh orders on merits after hearing the petitioner. Failure to comply would result in the writ petition being dismissed and the respondents being at liberty to recover the tax.
Key Issues
1. Whether the writ petition, filed after the dismissal of the appeal on grounds of delay and non-compliance with pre-deposit requirements, is maintainable on merits or on account of violation of principles of natural justice? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that they had already pre-deposited a sum of Rs. 22,45,545 and sought permission to explain their case subject to paying an additional 5% of the disputed tax. Revenue's contention: The respondents argued that the writ petition was devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed on the grounds of latches, as the petitioner had delayed filing the writ petition and had filed the appeal without the mandatory pre-deposit under Section 107 of the GST Act.
Sections Cited
Section 73, Section 107
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
O R D E R Mr.J.K.Jayaselan, learned Government Advocate takes notice for the respondents 1 and 2. 2. The petitioner is before this Court against the impugned order, dated 30.08.2024, passed under Section 73 of the respective Goods and Services Tax Enactments, 2017. The impugned order has proceeded with show cause notice issued in Form GST DRC 01, dated 27.05.2024, which was not replied by the petitioner. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Appellate Commissioner belatedly, which came to be dismissed vide order dated 20.05.2025 on the grounds of delay and on account of the failure on part of the petitioner to pre-deposit the amount required under Section 107 of the respective Goods and Services Tax Act. The petitioner has now approached this Court to quash the impugned assessment order, dated 30.08.2024, long after the dismissal of the appeal on 20.05.2025. _____________ Page No. 2 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that against the confirmed demand of Rs.5,23,09,082/-, the petitioner has already pre-deposited a sum of Rs.22,45,545/-, which is approximately less than 5% of the disputed tax. It is submitted that the petitioner may be permitted to explain the case subject to payment of another 5% of the disputed tax.
The learned Government Advocate for the respondents 1 and 2 submits that the present writ petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed on the ground of latches, as the petitioner has slept over his rights by not filing this writ petition at an earlier point of time and by filing the appeal without pre-deposit as mandate under Section 107 of the respective Goods and Services Tax enactments.
I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate for the respondents 1 and 2. _____________ Page No. 3 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A challenge to the impugned order at this distant point of time on merits or on the account of violation of principles of natural justice cannot be countenanced. Therefore, it is liable to be rejected. However, under similar circumstances, this Court has come to rescue the persons like the petitioner by putting such persons on terms. I find no reasons to take a different stand.
Therefore the petitioner is directed to deposit 25% of the disputed tax of Rs.5,23,09,082/- within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Subject to payment of the aforesaid amount within such time, the impugned order shall stands quashed. However, the petitioner shall file a detailed reply to the show cause notice by treating the impugned order dated 30.08.2024 as addendum to the aforesaid notice issued in Form GST DRC 01 within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is made clear that in case the petitioner fails to comply with the above conditions within the stipulated time, it shall be deemed that the writ petition stands dismissed and the respondents are at liberty to proceed against the petitioner to recover the tax. The amount already paid by the petitioner shall be adjusted to the amount of 25% of the disputed tax. In case the petitioner _____________ Page No. 4 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis complies with the above conditions, the respondents are directed to pass fresh orders on merits and in accordance with law after hearing the petitioner.
The writ petition stands disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. 25.06.2025 Sn Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No Neutral Citation : Yes/No Speaking Order / Non-Speaking Order To 1.The Assistant Commissioner, Thiruverumbur Assessment Circle, Tamil Nadu. 2.The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (ST), Goods and Service Tax, Trichy and Vellore Division, 2nd Main Road, Ponnagar, Trichy – 1. 3.The Branch Manager, Canara Bank, Cantonment 21, Madurai Road, Trichy – 620008. _____________ Page No. 5 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.SARAVANAN
, J.
Sn
2025 _____________ Page No. 6 of 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.