TaxHeal - GST and Income Tax Complete Guide Portal

Writ Challenge To Time-Barred Assessment Order Is Not Maintainable But Conditional Statutory Appeal May Be Allowed

Issue

Whether a writ petition under Article 226 is maintainable against an assessment order when the petitioner failed to file a statutory appeal within the prescribed limitation period.

Facts

Assessment Period: The dispute pertains to the financial year 2021-22.
Impugned Order: A final demand order in Form GST DRC-07 was passed, confirming the proposals made in the Show Cause Notice (SCN).
Petitioner’s Compliance: The petitioner had filed a reply in Form GST DRC-06 prior to the passing of the order.
Procedural Default: The petitioner did not file a statutory appeal under Section 107 within the mandatory three-month period (plus the one-month condonable period).
Writ Filing: The petitioner approached the High Court via a writ petition long after the total statutory limitation for filing an appeal had expired.

Decision

Writ Not Maintainable: The court held that the petitioner should have pursued the statutory remedy of appeal within the prescribed time; a writ petition cannot be used to bypass the expiry of statutory limitation.
Limitation Constraints: It was reaffirmed that the statutory limitation for filing a GST appeal cannot be extended beyond the period provided in Section 107.
Conditional Relief: Recognizing potential merits in the petitioner’s case, the court granted liberty to file a statutory appeal within 30 days.
Mandatory Pre-deposit: This liberty was made subject to the petitioner making a pre-deposit of 25% of the disputed tax (adjusting any amounts already recovered).
Merit-Based Adjudication: If the appeal is filed within this 30-day window with the required deposit, the Appellate Authority is directed to decide the matter on its merits without dismissing it on the grounds of limitation.

Key Takeaways

Strict Limitation: The High Court generally will not entertain writ petitions filed specifically to circumvent a time-barred statutory appeal.
Extraordinary Discretion: While the court may dismiss a writ as non-maintainable, it retains the discretionary power to “resurrect” an appeal right in exceptional cases, provided the assessee shows a willingness to deposit a portion of the tax.
Pre-deposit Strategy: A higher pre-deposit (25% in this case, compared to the standard 10%) is often the “price” for obtaining a merit-based hearing after the statutory deadline has passed.

HIGH COURT OF MADRAS

Maruti Novelty

State Tax Officer^*

C.Saravanan, J.

W.P. No. 10163 of 2026
W.M.P. No.10986 of 2026

MARCH 16, 2026

Sanjay Rajpurohit for the Petitioner. TNC. Kaushik, AGP for the Respondent.

ORDER

1. Mr.TNC. Kaushik, learned Additional Government Pleader takes notice for the respondents.

2. With the consent of the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents, this writ petition is being disposed of at the time of admission.

3. The petitioner is before this Court against the impugned order dated 25.02.2025 in Form GST DRC-07 passed for the tax period 2021-2022, whereby the proposal in Show Cause Notice dated 29.11.2024 has been confirmed against the petitioner. . The petitioner had also filed reply in Form GST DE-06 dated on 20.02.2025 to the show cause notice dated 29.11.2024, pursuant to which the impugned order has been passed.

4. The petitioner ought to have filed an appeal against the impugned order under Section 107 of the respective GST Enactments within the prescribed time. However, the petitioner failed to file an appeal in time. The present writ petition has also been filed on 19.01.2026 viz., long after the expiry of the limitation prescribed under Section 107 of the respective GST Enactments.

5. In view of the above, the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed in the light of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Asstt. Commissioner (CT) LTU v. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Ltd. GSTL 305 (SC), [C.A.No.2413 of 2020, dated 06.05.2020], wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the limitation prescribed under the Act for filing the appeal cannot be extended.

6. At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner may be granted liberty to file an appeal subject to terms.

7. Considering the fact that the petitioner may have a case on merits, liberty is granted to the petitioner to file an appeal before the Appellate Authority, subject to the petitioner depositing 25% of the disputed tax confirmed by the impugned order within 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

8. Needless to state, any amount recovered from the petitioner towards tax liability confirmed by the impugned order against the 25% pre-deposit shall be adjusted.

9. In case the petitioner files such an appeal within such time, the Appellate Authority shall consider the appeal and dispose of the same on merits and in accordance with law without reference to the limitation on its own turn.

10. The writ petition is disposed of with the above observation. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.