Anilkumar vs. The Deputy Commissioner (GST Appeal)
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Anilkumar, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 17.12.2024 passed by the second respondent, the State Tax Officer. This order was preceded by notices DRC-01A and DRC-01, to which the petitioner had submitted a reply and attended a personal hearing. The impugned order confirmed arrears of Rs. 64,65,506/- comprising tax, interest, and penalty. The petitioner contended that their reply was not considered, rendering the order arbitrary and in violation of natural justice. The respondents argued that the order considered the petitioner's reply and submissions, and cited precedents to suggest the petitioner was not entitled to file a statutory appeal.
Held
The Court, considering the time elapsed and the petitioner's delay in approaching the court, decided to grant relief on terms. The petitioner was directed to deposit 20% of the confirmed tax amount within 15 days of receiving the order, which is in addition to the 10% contemplated under Section 107 of the Goods and Services Tax Act. The petitioner was also directed to file an appeal before the appellate authority within a specified time. The appellate authority was instructed to consider the appeal on its merits without reference to the limitation period. The writ petition was dismissed with these directions, and the respondents were granted liberty to proceed with the impugned order if the petitioner failed to comply with the stipulated conditions. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.
Key Issues
1. Whether the impugned order dated 17.12.2024, passed by the second respondent, is liable to be quashed for allegedly failing to consider the petitioner's reply dated 10.10.2024 and violating principles of natural justice? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the impugned order is arbitrary and in violation of principles of natural justice because their reply to the show cause notices was not considered by the second respondent before passing the order. Respondents' contention: The respondents contended that the impugned order is a detailed order that duly considered the petitioner's reply dated 10.10.2024 and the submissions made during the personal hearing. They further argued, citing Singh Enterprises Vs CCE and CCE and Customs Vs.Hongo India (P) Limited, that the petitioner is not entitled to file a statutory appeal.
Sections Cited
Section 107, Section 106
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Before: and
This writ petition has been filed against the impugned order, dated 17.12.2024 passed by the second respondent and consequently direct the respondents to refund the tax collected from petitioner.
The impugned order preceded notice in DRC-01A, dated 29.07.2024 and the notice in DRC-01, dated 12.09.2024, to which the petitioner has also submitted a reply on 10.10.2024. The petitioner also appeared for a personal hearing, after which the impugned order was passed. The impugned order is a detailed order and concluded that the petitioner is in arrears of Rs.64,65,506/- including interest and penalty as detailed below: Tax period Act Tax/cess Interest Penalty Fees Others Total Total 4549904 1461162 454940 0 0 6465506 2/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
It is the specific case of the petitioner that the petitioner's reply has not been considered and therefore, the impugned order is liable to be quashed as arbitrary and in violation of principles of natural justice.
The learned Government Advocate for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the impugned order is a detailed order and it considers the petitioner's reply, dated 10.10.2024 and also the submissions made during the on terms: (i) The petitioner having slept over his rights under Section 106 of the Goods and Services Tax Act shall deposit over and above 10% that is 3/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis contemplated under Section 107 of the Goods and Services Tax Act. In other words, the petitioner shall pay 20% of the tax confirmed vide impugned order within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. (ii) The petitioner shall file an appeal before the appellate authority within such time. (iii) The appellate authority shall thereafter pass appropriate orders on merits in the proposed appeal without reference to the limitation.
The writ petition stands dismissed with the above liberty. In case, the petitioner failed to comply with the above stipulations, the respondents are at liberty to proceed further in furtherance of the impugned order as if the above liberty was not given to the petitioner. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
2025 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No sn 4/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis To 1.The Deputy Commissioner (GST Appeal), CT Buildings, A.R Line Road, Palayamkottai, Thirunelveli. 2.The State Tax Officer 4 (Ins), Office of the Joint Commissioner (IW), Tirunelveli. 5/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.SARAVANAN, J.
sn
2025 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.