M/S.Pathmakiruthiga Enterprises vs. The Additional Commissioner/ Joint Commissioner Of GST
Facts
The petitioner, M/s.Pathmakiruthiga Enterprises, filed a writ petition challenging an ex-parte assessment order dated March 28, 2023, passed by the Superintendent of GST & Central Excise, Rajapalayam-II Range. The petitioner contended that the order was illegal and violated principles of natural justice. The appeal period for the order had expired. The respondents are the Additional Commissioner/Joint Commissioner of GST and the Superintendent of GST & Central Excise. The writ petition sought to quash the impugned assessment order.
Held
The Court held that the petitioner suffered an ex-parte order. While the appeal period had expired, the Court permitted the petitioner to file an appeal within thirty days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order, without reference to limitation. As a condition, the petitioner was required to pay 10% of the disputed tax amount as pre-deposit. Upon remittance of the pre-deposit and filing of the appeal within the stipulated time, the attachment made in the petitioner's bank account would be lifted. The Court also stated that if the petitioner failed to comply with these conditions, the benefit of the order would stand recalled automatically. The Court did not explicitly decide on the illegality or violation of natural justice of the original order but provided a procedural remedy.
Key Issues
1. Whether the ex-parte assessment order passed by the second respondent is illegal and in violation of the principles of natural justice, as argued by the petitioner? The petitioner contended that the order was passed without proper opportunity to be heard, thus violating natural justice principles. The revenue did not record any specific arguments in the judgment regarding this issue. 2. Whether the petitioner should be permitted to file an appeal beyond the prescribed limitation period, and if so, under what conditions? The petitioner sought permission to file an appeal, implying a need for condonation of delay. The revenue's stance on this is not explicitly recorded.
Sections Cited
Article 226
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
1 W.P.(MD)NO.34764 OF 2025 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 28.11.2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN W.P.(MD)No.34764 of 2025 AND W.M.P.(MD)No.27466 & 27467 of 2025 M/s.Pathmakiruthiga Enterprises, Prop.M.Muthumari, No.1/209A, Labavinayagar Kovil Street, Samusigapuram, Virudhunagar-2. ... Petitioner Vs.
The Additional Commissioner/ Joint Commissioner of GST, Central Excise(Appeals), Lal Bhadur Shastri Marg, C.R.Building, Bibikulam, Madurai – 2. 2. The Superintendent of GST & Central Excise, Rajapalayam-II Range, 1/15, Shenbagathoppu Road, Rajapalayam. ... Respondents Prayer: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records pursuant to the impugned assessment order passed by the second respondent vide his reference No.O.C.53/2023 dated 28.03.2023, quash the same as illegal and violating principles of natural justice. For Petitioner : Mr.M.Iniyavan For Respondents : Mr.R.Gowri Shankar * * * 1/3 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2 W.P.
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.