M/S. Vk Construction vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer - Ii
Facts
The petitioner, M/s. VK Construction, challenged an order-in-original dated 29.08.2025 by filing an appeal on 06.01.2026. The appeal was rejected by the Deputy Commissioner GST Appeals (2nd respondent) on the grounds of delay, as it was filed beyond the condonable period. The petitioner then filed a writ petition before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court seeking to quash the appellate order and a consequential notice issued by the State Tax Officer (3rd respondent). The impugned communication was dated 12.02.2026 in Form GST APL-02.
Held
The Court held that the appeal was lodged beyond the condonable period, and therefore, there was no infirmity in the order rejecting the appeal. However, the Court noted that the order-in-original appeared to be an ex parte order. While upholding the rejection of the appeal due to delay, the Court left it open for the petitioner to challenge the order-in-original. The writ petition was disposed of with this liberty. The operative direction was to allow the petitioner to challenge the order-in-original. No specific issue was left undecided, as the Court addressed the legality of the appeal rejection and provided a path for the petitioner to address the underlying order.
Key Issues
1. Whether the rejection of the petitioner's appeal by the Deputy Commissioner GST Appeals on the ground of delay was legally sustainable, considering the appeal was filed beyond the condonable period? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner implicitly argued for condonation of delay or for a reconsideration of the appeal on merits, as they approached the High Court via a writ petition to quash the appellate order. The fact that the order-in-original was ex parte was also highlighted. Revenue's contention: The revenue, represented by the learned Government Advocate (Taxes), contended that the appeal was lodged beyond the condonable period, and therefore, there was no infirmity in the order rejecting the appeal. No specific provisions or precedents were cited by either party in the provided text.
Sections Cited
GST APL-02, GST DRC-13
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 15-10-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY CNR:{HCMD011459942026} AND WMP(MD) No. 22558 of 2026 WMP(MD) No. 22562 of 2026 M/s. VK CONSTRUCTION, Represented By its Proprietor, PANNEERSELVAM.K, No.1021-1, Davoodmill, Vellanur, Pudukkottai - 622501. ..Petitioner(s) Vs
The Deputy State Tax Officer - II, Pudukkottai - III Assessment Circle, 5893/3, Kattupudukkulam, Pudukkottai - 622001. 2. The Deputy Commissioner GST Appeals 12A/26, 2nd Main Road, Ponnagar, Tiruchirappalli
The State Tax Officer, Pudukkottai - III Assessment Circle, 5893/3, Kattupudukkulam, Pudukkottai - 622001. ..Respondent(s) PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records pertaining to the impugned communication dated 12.02.2026 in Form GST APL-02 bearing Reference No.ZD330226104990O passed by the 2nd respondent and the consequential Notice in Form GST DRC-13 issued by the 3rd Respondent and quash the same and pass such other or further orders as this Honble Court may deem fit a
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.