Extension of Time Granted for Appeal Following Full Disputed Tax Payment.

By | September 18, 2025
Last Updated on: September 19, 2025

Extension of Time Granted for Appeal Following Full Tax Payment.

An assessee, despite having a valid legal right to appeal, was granted additional time to file an appeal against an order confirming a tax demand, a penalty, and interest, as the entire tax amount had already been paid, and there was no violation of natural justice.


Issue

Whether an assessee who has already paid the full disputed tax amount can be granted additional time to file a statutory appeal against an order confirming the tax demand, interest, and penalty.


Facts

The assessee was subject to a tax demand for the period from 2017-18 to January 2024. An order-in-original was issued, confirming a tax due of Rs. 1.86 crore under Section 74 of the CGST Act. The assessee contended that Rs. 72.83 lakh had already been paid and appropriated by the department before the order was passed. Despite this, the order confirmed the full amount, imposed interest, and levied a penalty equal to the tax amount. The assessee had paid an additional Rs. 3.74 lakh towards interest. The assessee challenged this order.

The court noted that there was no violation of the principles of natural justice. However, since the assessee was aggrieved by the order and had already paid the entire disputed tax amount, they were seeking a remedy.


Decision

The court did not quash the order but granted the assessee liberty to file a statutory appeal within a period of 30 days. The court recognized that while there was no procedural violation, the assessee had a legitimate grievance regarding the confirmed demand, especially considering the prior payment that was not fully accounted for. By granting the assessee time to file a formal appeal, the court provided a proper forum for the dispute to be adjudicated on its merits.


Key Takeaways

  • Discretion of the Court: Even in the absence of a violation of natural justice, a court may use its discretion to allow an assessee to pursue a statutory remedy.
  • Payment of Disputed Amount: The fact that the assessee had already paid the full disputed tax amount was a significant factor in the court’s decision, demonstrating the assessee’s good faith and intent to resolve the matter.
  • No Bypass of Statutory Process: The court did not interfere with the order itself but redirected the assessee to the appropriate legal channel, thereby upholding the sanctity of the statutory appeal process.

Issue

Whether an assessee who has already paid the full disputed tax amount can be granted additional time to file a statutory appeal against an order confirming the tax demand, interest, and penalty.


Facts

The assessee was subject to a tax demand for the period from 2017-18 to January 2024. An order-in-original was issued, confirming a tax due of Rs. 1.86 crore under Section 74 of the CGST Act. The assessee contended that Rs. 72.83 lakh had already been paid and appropriated by the department before the order was passed. Despite this, the order confirmed the full amount, imposed interest, and levied a penalty equal to the tax amount. The assessee had paid an additional Rs. 3.74 lakh towards interest. The assessee challenged this order.

The court noted that there was no violation of the principles of natural justice. However, since the assessee was aggrieved by the order and had already paid the entire disputed tax amount, they were seeking a remedy.


Decision

The court did not quash the order but granted the assessee liberty to file a statutory appeal within a period of 30 days. The court recognized that while there was no procedural violation, the assessee had a legitimate grievance regarding the confirmed demand, especially considering the prior payment that was not fully accounted for. By granting the assessee time to file a formal appeal, the court provided a proper forum for the dispute to be adjudicated on its merits.


Key Takeaways

  • Discretion of the Court: Even in the absence of a violation of natural justice, a court may use its discretion to allow an assessee to pursue a statutory remedy.
  • Payment of Disputed Amount: The fact that the assessee had already paid the full disputed tax amount was a significant factor in the court’s decision, demonstrating the assessee’s good faith and intent to resolve the matter.
  • No Bypass of Statutory Process: The court did not interfere with the order itself but redirected the assessee to the appropriate legal channel, thereby upholding the sanctity of the statutory appeal process.
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Nanguneri Radhapuram Taluks Agricultural Co-Op Marketing Society Ltd.
v.
Assistant Commissioner of Central GST and Central Excise, Tirunelveli*
C.Saravanan, J.
W.P.(MD) No.21634 of 2025
W.M.P.(MD) No.16730 of 2025
AUGUST  7, 2025
A. Satheesh Murugan for the Petitioner. N. Dilip Kumar, Sr. Standing Counsel for the Respondent.
ORDER
1. The petitioner is before this Court challenging the impugned Order-in-Original No.66/AC/GST/2024, dated 17.12.2024, passed in respect of the tax period from 2017-2018 to January 2024.
2. By the impugned order, a sum of Rs.1,86,80,002/- has been confirmed as tax due from the petitioner for the aforementioned period. While passing the said order, a sum of Rs.72,83,866/-, which had already been paid, was appropriated. Consequently, interest under Section 50 of the respective GST enactments has been levied. An amount of Rs.3,74,718/- was also paid towards interest. Additionally, the petitioner has been subjected to a penalty equal to the tax amount, i.e., Rs.1,86,80,002/-. The operative portion of the impugned order reads as under:-
”(i) I confirm the demand of an amount of Rs.1,86,80,002 (Rupees One Crore Eighty Six Lakh Eighty Thousand and Two only), [CGST Rs.93,40,001/-and SGST Rs.93,40,001/-] for the period 2017-18 to Jan. 2024 as tabulated in para 2.3 above, under Section 74(9) of CGST/TNGST Act, 2017.
(ii) I appropriate an amount of Rs.72,83,866/- (Rupees Seventy Two Lakh Eighty Three Thousand Eight Hundred and Sixty Six only), [CGST Rs.36,41,933/- and SGST Rs.36,41,933/-] paid vide various DRC-03s as detailed in the table under para 4.2 against the amount demanded in Sl.No.(i) above.
(iii) I confirm the demand of Interest under Section 50 of the CGST/TNGST Act, 2017 on the amounts mentioned in Sl.No. (i) above.
(iv) I appropriate an amount of Rs.3,74,718/- (Rupees Three Lakh Seventy Four Thousand Seven Hundred and Eighteen only), [CGST Rs.1,87,359/- and SGST Rs.1,87,359/-], being interest towards CGST and SGST paid through various DRC03s as detailed in the table under para 4.2 against Sl.No.iii above.
(v) I impose a penalty of Rs.1,86,80,002 (Rupees One Crore Eighty Six Lakhs Eighty Thousand and Two only [CGST Rs.93,40,001/- and SGST Rs.93,40,001/-] under Section 74(9) of the CGST/TNGST Act, 2017 read with Sec. 122 of the CGST/TNGST Act, 2017.”
3. Although the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner did not participate in the proceedings, a reading of Paragraph 3.2 of the impugned order indicates that the petitioner had, in fact, submitted a written representation and also appeared for a personal hearing. Paragraph 3.2 of the impugned order reads as under:-
”3.2. Further, with the change of adjudicating authority and in keeping with the principles of natural justice, one more communication was sent to them under ref No.GEXCOM/ADJN/GST/4992/2024-CGST-Div.TNVL COMMRTE-MADURAI dated 26.11.2024 fixing a personal hearing by virtual mode on 11.12.2024. In the response to the above, tax payer filed a request for appearing physically for the PH vide their letter dated 11.12.2024 and appeared for the personal hearing, filed a written submission and stated the following points:
that they are registered co-operative society carrying on the activity of trading of ration supplies (both PDS and Non PDS);
that due to lack of knowledge regarding the tax aspects;
that most of the purchases, a delivery order is being issued by Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation and there is no tax invoice as not issued and they are not aware of the tax rates on the products supplied by them and they have raised tax invoices only for few products;
that because of the above there was a difference in the tax payment and they have recalculated and attached a reconciliation statement with accurate figures;
that in the initial years (2017-28 to 2019-20) they have failed to claim the ITC by which a huge amount of ITC has been left unclaimed due to lack of knowledge;
that they request for a week’s time for payment of balance tax considering their previous payments.”
Thus, it cannot be contended that there was any violation of the principles of natural justice. However, the fact remains that the petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order.
4. Considering the fact that the entire disputed tax amount has been subsequently paid by the petitioner on 13.01.2025, 24.01.2025, and 11.03.2025, totalling a sum of Rs.1,13,96,137/-, liberty is granted to the petitioner to file a statutory appeal within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Needless to state, the petitioner shall not be required to make any further pre-deposit, as the disputed tax has already been paid.
5. This Writ Petition stands disposed of accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
Category: GST

About CA Satbir Singh

Chartered Accountant having 12+ years of Experience in Taxation , Finance and GST related matters and can be reached at Email : Taxheal@gmail.com