The Madras High Court, in a recent ruling, addressed the challenges faced by small business owners when they attempt to file a regulatory appeal following a tax assessment order. The court noted that the assessment order was deemed served simply by being uploaded on the Goods and Services Tax portal. As a result, the court provided an opportunity for these business owners to submit a plea against the assessment order.
The case is of an assessment order on 26.02.2025, which was passed via the Deputy State Tax Officer, against the applicant, Deepalakshmi Coirs, confirming a tax obligation of ₹2,58,952. Despite receiving a show-cause notice and responding to it, the petitioner did not file an appeal within the specified timeframe.
U/s 169(1)(D) of the GST Act, the order was considered served by uploading it on the common portal.
The petitioner put reliance on High Court precedents, including Nandhini Ginning Factory v. Assistant Commissioner and Coastal Plasto Chem Pvt. Ltd. v. State Tax Officer, to claim that equitable jurisdiction under Article 226 could be invoked to allow an appeal, as per the additional deposit conditions.
While the revenue countered, specifying that the applicant had earlier suffered the assessment order, which had attained finality. As the regulatory structure furnishes a plea remedy with a specified limitation period and an outer condonable limit, the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot extend that limitation or interfere with the merits of the order, especially when the applicant opted not to submit a plea.
After considering the assertions, the High Court admitted the binding principle that limitation cannot ordinarily be extended.
Justice Chakravarthy differentiated the case into two grounds: that the applicant was a small timer, and the service of the order was effected only via deemed service on the portal, without other modes of communication.
Read Also: GST Software vs GSTN: Main Key Differences Explained
Marking that the court mentioned that, ” I am of the view that this is one of the fit cases as an extraordinary matter, such a discretion can be exercised.”
The applicant should submit an appeal within 1 week of obtaining the web copy of the order, and the appeal should be accompanied by proof of 25% deposit of the disputed tax.
Subsequently, the writ petition was disposed of.
| Case Title | Tvl.Deepalakshmi Coirs vs The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes |
| Case No. | WW.P(MD)No.5642 of 2026 W.M.P(MD)No.4699 of 2026 |
| For Petitioner | Mr.B.Rooban |
| For Respondent | Mr.R.Suresh Kumar Special Government Pleader |
| Madras High Court | Read Order |
