HC Denies Writ for Time-Barred Appeal, Cites Lack of Procedural Flaw.
Issue
Whether a High Court can entertain a writ petition under Article 226 to review the merits of a GST demand order when the taxpayer has already missed the statutory deadline for filing an appeal under Section 107, and there are no apparent procedural infirmities in the order.
Facts
- An assessee faced a GST demand on multiple issues, and the matter was initially remanded for a fresh order.
- On remand, the adjudicating authority, after providing a hearing, passed a new order confirming the demand on only one of the original issues (excess ITC claim in GSTR-9 over GSTR-2A).
- The assessee paid the tax amount confirmed in this new order.
- However, instead of filing a statutory appeal, the assessee filed a writ petition in the High Court. This writ was filed after the maximum period for filing an appeal, including the condonable period of one month, had already expired.
- The court found no obvious procedural errors or violations of natural justice in the order passed on remand.
Decision
- The High Court dismissed the writ petition, ruling in favour of the revenue on the point of maintainability.
- It held that its power under Article 226 is not meant for reviewing the merits of an assessment order, especially when there are no discernible procedural infirmities.
- The court affirmed that a writ petition cannot be used as a tool to bypass the statutory appeal mechanism or to revive a remedy that has become time-barred due to the assessee’s own inaction.
- However, providing a final opportunity to the assessee, the court granted liberty to file the statutory appeal within 15 days.
- It also directed that the tax amount already paid by the assessee would be considered sufficient to meet the mandatory pre-deposit requirement for the appeal.
Key Takeaways
- Writ Jurisdiction is for Procedural Errors, Not Merits: High Courts will typically not interfere with a tax order under their writ jurisdiction to decide on the merits of a tax dispute if there is no evidence of a violation of natural justice, a lack of jurisdiction, or a major procedural flaw.
- Exhaust Statutory Remedies First: The “Rule of Alternate Remedy” is strictly applied. A taxpayer must first exhaust the appeal process provided under the statute before approaching the High Court.
- Writ is Not a Cure for a Time-Barred Appeal: A taxpayer cannot use a writ petition as a back door to challenge an order after they have failed to file a statutory appeal within the prescribed limitation period.
- Discretionary Relief: While dismissing the writ, the court exercised its discretionary power to grant the assessee a short, final window to file the appeal, ensuring that the doors of justice were not completely closed on a technicality.
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Tvl. Saravana Projects & Co.
v.
Assistant Commissioner (ST)(FAC), Chennai
C. Saravanan, J.
W.P. No. 38351 of 2025
W.M.P. Nos.42882 and 42883 of 2025
W.M.P. Nos.42882 and 42883 of 2025
OCTOBER 14, 2025
Prabhu Mukunth Arunkumar for the Petitioner. Mrs. K. Vasanthamala, Govt. Adv. for the Respondent.
ORDER
1. This is the second round of litigation before this Court. Earlier, petitioner had suffered an adverse order in the hands of the respondent vide order dated 26.12.2023, which was the subject matter of challenge before this Court in Tvl. Saravanaa Projects & Co. v. Assistant Commissioner (ST) GST 807/85 GSTL 301 (Madras)/W.P. No.7752 of 2024. Vide order dated 22.03.2024, this Court remanded the matter back to the respondent to pass a fresh order on merits.
2. Pursuant to the aforesaid order of the Writ Court dated 22.03.2024, the petitioner was heard and thereafter a fresh order was passed on 08.04.2025. Out the three surviving issues in the aforesaid demand proceedings, the respondent has now confirmed the demand only in respect of discrepancy No.2 namely, excess availment of Input Tax Credit (ITC), as per GSTR 9 than GSTR 2A.
3. By the impugned order it was also concluded that the petitioner has not proved whether suppliers have filed their GSTR 1 for the month of March, 2019. Therefore, in the absence of such proof, petitioner was ineligible to avail ITC which was not reflected in GSTR 2A and supplier GSTR-1 and hence to this extent, ITC of IGST of Rs.51,256/-, CGST of Rs.1,12,360/- and SGST of Rs.1,12,360/- was confirmed to be recovered along with penalty under Section 74(1) and interest under Section 50(3) respectively under the GST Act. The operative portions of the order reads as under:-
“But the Tax payer has not proved whether the suppliers have filed their GSTR-1 of the said invoices before March 2019. In the absence if such proof they are not eligible to avail the above said ITC which were not reflected in 2A and suppliers GSTR-1 and hence this portion of ITC of IGST: 51256- CGST:112360 -SGST:11236 – is confirmed to be recovered along with penalty under Section 74(1) and interest under Section 50(3) of the GST Act.”
4. This order was suo-moto modified by invoking machinery under Section 161 of the respective GST enactment whereby the aforesaid demand was partly modified as under:
| Sr. No. | Tax Rate (%) | Turn over | Tax Period | Act | POS (Place of Supply) | Tax | Interest | Penalty | Fee | Othe rs | Total | |
| From | To | |||||||||||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 |
| 1 | 0 | 0.00 | Jul 2017 | Mar 2018 | IGST | Tamil Nadu | 51,256.00 | 64,279.00 | 20,000.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 1,35,535.00 |
| 2 | 0 | 0.00 | Jul 2017 | Mar 2018 | CGST | NA | 1,12,360.00 | 1,40,909.00 | 11,236.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 2,64,505.00 |
| 3 | 0 | 0.00 | Jul 2017 | Mar 2018 | SGST | NA | 1,12,360.00 | 1,40,909.00 | 11,236.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 2,64,505.00 |
5. Learned counsel for petitioner would also submit that tax impugned to the tune of Rs.2,75,976/- has been paid by the petitioner on 18.05.2025 vide Challan in Form GST PMT-06. He would further submit that though the Court had remitted the case back to the respondent considering the case in its true perspective and the respondent has however reconfirmed the due that was earlier confirmed vide order dated 26.12.2023, which was set aside by this Court vide order dated 22.03.2024 in W.P.No.7752 of 2024.
6. Learned Government Advocate appearing for respondent would submit that the writ petition is devoid of merits and therefore liable to be dismissed.
7. It is submitted by the learned counsel for petitioner that an alternative remedy by way of an appeal is available for them.
8. Considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing on either side.
9. This Court finds that petitioner has filed this writ petition on 07.08.2025. However, has taken steps to number this writ petition only on 13.10.2025. The attempt of the petitioner to have the issue redressed on merits under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot be countenanced as no procedural infirmities are discernible from a reading of the impugned order. Therefore, the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed. It is also noticed that the petitioner has filed the writ petition only on the last date for condoning the delay in filing an appeal had expired.
10. Considering the same, this writ petition is dismissed. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to file an appeal within a period of 15 days from today. Since the petitioner has already paid the tax amount that was confirmed, no further pre-deposit is required to be made for filing the proposed appeal. In case, such an appeal is filed within the time stipulated above, the Appellate Authority shall dispose of the appeal on merits on its turn. Needless to state, an opportunity of hearing shall be accorded to the petitioner, in accordance with law before passing final order. Since, the entire tax has been recovered, there shall be no further recovery pending final disposal of the appeal. In case the petitioner fails to file appeal within the stipulated time, the respondent is at liberty to proceed against the petitioner in the manner known to law. No costs.
Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.