Katharshah Ziauldeen vs. The Deputy Commissioner(CT)

Held

The Court held that the challenge to the order dated 04.08.2025, rejecting the petitioner's appeal in limine, could not be entertained due to the inordinate delay in approaching the Appellate Commissioner. The Court relied on Supreme Court decisions in Assistant Commissioner (CT), LTU, Kakinada and others vs. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limited, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 44, and M/s. Singh Enterprises vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jamshedpur and others, (2008) 3 SCC 70, to support this finding. However, considering the petitioner's failure to reply to the show cause notice preceding the assessment order, the Court granted limited relief. The petitioner was directed to deposit 25% of the disputed tax within 30 days, with credit for the 10% already deposited. Upon compliance, the petitioner was to file a consolidated reply to the show cause notice, which would be treated as an addendum to the DRC-01 notice. The second respondent was then directed to pass fresh orders on merits within three months. Failure to comply would result in the dismissal of the writ petition and the respondents proceeding with recovery.

Facts

The petitioner, Katharshah Ziauldeen, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 04.08.2025 passed by the Deputy Commissioner (1st respondent), which rejected the petitioner's appeal against an assessment order dated 28.01.2025 passed by the Assistant Commissioner (2nd respondent). The assessment order pertained to the tax period 2017-18 and was preceded by a notice DRC01 to which the petitioner had not replied. The petitioner's appeal to the first respondent was filed on 02.08.2025, which was beyond the condonable period of limitation under Section 107 of the GST enactments. The first respondent rejected the appeal in limine due to this delay.

Key Issues

1. Whether the High Court can entertain a challenge to an order rejecting an appeal in limine due to an inordinate delay in filing the appeal, considering the provisions of Section 107 of the GST enactments and settled Supreme Court precedents. Petitioner's contention: The petitioner sought to quash the order of the first respondent and prayed for condonation of delay in filing the appeal, asserting a violation of natural justice. The petitioner argued that the appeal was filed on 02.08.2025, and the rejection by the first respondent was illegal. Revenue's contention: The respondents argued that the impugned order was passed strictly in accordance with the provisions of the GST enactments and settled law, and there was no merit in the petitioner's challenge.