Tvl.Pearl Garden Resort Private Limited vs. The State Tax Officer
Facts
The petitioner, Tvl.Pearl Garden Resort Private Limited, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 23.10.2024 passed by the State Tax Officer and a consequential form GST DRC 07 issued by the Commercial Tax Officer, both dated 23.10.2024. The petitioner sought to quash these orders and requested an opportunity for a personal hearing. The impugned order was appealable, but the petitioner failed to file an appeal within the prescribed time. The petitioner had already remitted the entire tax due.
Held
The Court acknowledged that the impugned order was appealable and that the petitioner had failed to file an appeal within the stipulated time. However, considering the special facts and circumstances of the case, the Court permitted the petitioner to file an appeal within four weeks from the date of receiving a copy of the order. Since the petitioner had already remitted the entire tax, the issue of pre-deposit was rendered moot. The Court directed that if the appeal papers were in order, they should be numbered and taken on file immediately. The appellate authority was instructed to dispose of the appeal within three months thereafter. The Court reiterated that an appeal proceeding is a continuation of the original proceeding and allowed the petitioner to adduce evidence before the appellate authority. All contentions of the petitioner were left open for consideration by the appellate authority.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioner should be granted an opportunity to file an appeal against the impugned order, despite the delay in filing. Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that due to special facts and circumstances, they should be permitted to file an appeal. They also highlighted that the entire tax had already been remitted, negating the need for pre-deposit. They sought a direction for a personal hearing before the appellate authority. Revenue's contention: The judgment records no specific contention from the respondents regarding the delay in filing the appeal or the grant of further opportunity. The respondents were heard, but their arguments on the specific issues are not detailed in the judgment.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 18.11.2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN and W.M.P(MD)No.25908 of 2025 Tvl.Pearl Garden Resort Private Limited, Represented by its Managing Director, Ahmed Mohideen, No.3/110-A, Kattu Magdoom Palli, Kayalpattinam, Tuticorin – 628 204. ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The State Tax Officer, Tuticorin III Assessment Circle, Office of the Assistant Commissioner (ST), Tuticorin III Circle, C.T.Buildings, 282, North Beach Road, Tuticorin – 628 001. 2.The Commercial Tax Officer, Tuticorin III Circle, Office of the Assistant Commissioner (ST), 1/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.T.Buildings, 282, North Beach Road, Tuticorin – 628 001. ... Respondents 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 of the impugned Order passed by the first respondent in Order No.GSTIN 33AAKCP8645F1Z7/2020-21, dated 23.10.2024 and consequential form GST DRC 07 issued by the second respondent in Ref No.ZD331024164155T, dat
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.