M/S.Bodinayakkanur Municipality vs. The State Tax Officer (Intelligence)

Facts

The petitioner, M/s.Bodinayakkanur Municipality, filed five writ petitions (W.P.(MD) No.4866 to 4870 of 2026) before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court. These petitions challenged orders passed by the respondent, the State Tax Officer (Intelligence), dated 13.03.2025. The orders were in Form GST DRC-07 and related to GSTIN 33AAALB0761D1ZV/2019-20 and 33AAALB0761D1ZV/2018-19. The petitioner sought to quash these orders as void and illegal. The matters were taken up for final disposal at the admission stage with the consent of both parties. The petitioner's counsel sought liberty to file appeals, citing administrative reasons for the delay in filing them within the stipulated time. The petitioner also undertook to pay 10% of the disputed tax over and above the statutory deposit required for filing appeals.

Held

The Court held that considering the facts and circumstances, and the petitioner's undertaking, liberty should be granted to the petitioner to file appeals. The Court directed the petitioner to pay 10% of the disputed tax over and above the statutory deposit made at the time of filing the appeals for the respective assessment years, before the respondent, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. Upon receipt of this payment, the respondent was directed to take the petitioner's appeals on record and dispose of them in accordance with the law. The Court disposed of the writ petitions with these directions, and there was no order as to costs. The connected miscellaneous petitions were also closed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner should be granted liberty to file appeals against the impugned orders passed by the respondent, despite the delay, considering the petitioner's undertaking to pay 10% of the disputed tax over and above the statutory deposit. Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that due to administrative reasons, they were unable to file appeals within the prescribed time. They sought permission to file appeals and undertook to pay 10% of the disputed tax in addition to the statutory deposit. Respondent's contention: The respondent, represented by the learned Additional Government Pleader, submitted that the petitioner's appeals would be considered if they paid 10% of the disputed tax over and above the statutory deposit made at the time of filing the appeals for the respective assessment years.