Sree Sakthi Timber Depot vs. The Appellate Deputy Commissioner, Goods And Services Tax (Appeals)
Facts
The petitioner, Sree Sakthi Timber Depot, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 21.09.2026 passed by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner, Goods and Services Tax (Appeals). This order rejected the petitioner's appeal, which was filed on 29.04.2026, due to a delay. The original order was dated 22.12.2025. The petitioner contended that they had filed an application for rectification before lodging the appeal, asserting that input tax credit reconciliation, specifically for IGST, was not properly done in the original order. The respondents are the Appellate Deputy Commissioner and the State Tax Officer.
Held
The Court held that the petitioner did not contest the original order, and therefore, there appeared to be no basis for a rectification application in the absence of any internal inconsistency in the original order. The Court found that the appeal was lodged beyond the condonable period as per Section 107 of the applicable GST statutes. Consequently, the Court found no infirmity in the order rejecting the appeal. The Court declined to interfere with the impugned appellate order but left it open to the petitioner to challenge the original order in accordance with law. No costs were awarded.
Key Issues
1. Whether the Appellate Deputy Commissioner was justified in rejecting the petitioner's appeal on the grounds of delay, considering the provisions of Section 107 of the applicable GST statutes? 2. Whether the petitioner's application for rectification, filed prior to the appeal, had any bearing on the delay in filing the appeal? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that an application for rectification was filed before lodging the appeal. They contended that the original order did not properly reconcile input tax credit concerning the IGST head. Revenue's Arguments: The revenue, represented by the learned Government Advocate (Taxes), did not explicitly present arguments on the merits of the rectification application or the delay. However, the Court's observation implies that the revenue did not contest the rejection of the appeal.
Sections Cited
Section 107
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 05-10-2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY {CNR: HCMD011426092026} Case QR WMP (MD) No.21787 of 2026
Sree Sakthi Timber Depot represented by its Partner/Authorised Signatory Thiru. SUDALAI MANI PALANIVELRAJAN having its place of business at No.30 Thamaraikulam North Mannargudi Tiruvarur Tamil Nadu 614001. GSTIN 33AABFS2612K1ZH Petitioner(s) Vs
The Appellate Deputy Commissioner, Goods and Services Tax (Appeals) Trichy Division Office of the Deputy Commissioner (CT) Tiruchirappalli Tamil Nadu.
The State Tax Officer Mannargudi Assessment Circle Commercial Taxes Department West First Street Water Tank Building Mannargudi Tiruvarur - 614 001. Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s): 1/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Mr.Maharajan R For Respondent(s): Ms.P.Sudarkodi Nachyar, GA (Taxes) Prayer: Writ Petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, order or direction, calling for the records relating to the impugned order dated 21.09.2026 pa
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.