K.Karuppasamy vs. The Deputy Commissioner (GST Appeal)
Facts
The petitioner, K. Karuppasamy, filed a writ petition challenging an ex-parte order dated 30.05.2025 passed by the State Tax Officer, Palayamkottai Assessment Circle, concerning the tax period December 2018 - March 2019. The petitioner contended that the order was suffered ex-parte and the appeal period had expired. The petitioner sought to quash the impugned order and requested a redo of the assessment proceedings for the year 2019-2020. The respondents are the Deputy Commissioner (GST Appeal), the State Tax Officer, and the Assistant Commissioner (ST).
Held
The Court acknowledged that the petitioner had suffered an ex-parte order and that the appeal period had expired. However, instead of quashing the order or directing a redo of the assessment proceedings as initially prayed, the Court permitted the petitioner to file an appeal within thirty days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. This permission was granted without reference to the limitation period. The Court stipulated that the petitioner must pay 10% of the disputed tax amount as a pre-deposit. The benefit of this order would stand automatically recalled if the pre-deposit was not remitted or the appeal was not filed within the specified thirty days. The writ petition was disposed of accordingly.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to file an appeal against the ex-parte order dated 30.05.2025, notwithstanding the expiry of the statutory appeal period, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India? The petitioner argued that the ex-parte order was suffered due to circumstances that prevented them from appearing or filing an appeal within the stipulated time. They sought the intervention of the High Court to allow them to present their case before the appellate authority. The petitioner relied on the inherent powers of the High Court under Article 226 to grant relief in cases of injustice. The respondents did not record any specific arguments in the judgment.
Sections Cited
Article 226
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 27.11.2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN and W.M.P(MD)Nos.27329 & 27330 of 2025 K.Karuppasamy ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The Deputy Commissioner (GST Appeal), O/o.The Deputy Commissioner (GST Appeal), Commercial Taxes, 1st Floor, Dr.MGR New Bus Stand, Tirunelveli – 627 005. 2.The State Tax Officer, Palayamkottai Assessment Circle, Commercial Taxes Department, Tirunelveli Division, Tirunelveli – 627 007. 3.The Assistant Commissioner (ST), Palayamkottai, Dr.MGR New Bus Stand, 1st Floor, Veinthankulam, Tirunelveli – 627 007. ... Respondents 1/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order of the second respondent in GSTIN: 33ADEPK2696R2ZW/ Dec 2018 - Mar 2019 dated 30.05.2025 and quash the same and redo the assessment proceedings of the year 2019-2020. For Petitioner : Mr.Ramsundar Vijayraj For Respondents : Mr.
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.