Madras High Court Quashes GST Appellate Order; Allows Fresh Hearing:

Tye Madras High Court has quashed the appellate order dated 10.03.2025, provided the company pays 25% of the disputed tax.
HC Quashes Appellate Order, Provided Company Pays 25% of Disputed Tax

Madras High Court Quashes GST Appellate Order; Allows Fresh Hearing
The present writ petition is being filed by a company named Tvl Nesta, represented by its owner, Sathesh Kumar from Trichy, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the Madras High Court. Here, the company is challenging an order dated 10.03.2025 that was passed by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (ST). The order was dismissing their appeal against a tax assessment order on the ground that the appeal was filed late as per Section 107 of the respective Goods and Services Tax Enactments, 2017.
The dispute arose when the Deputy State Tax Officer passed an assessment order dated 24.07.2023, relating to the period between 01.04.2019 to 31.03.2020 and raised a tax demand against the company. However, the company did not participate in any proceedings before the Deputy State Tax Officer. Later, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner. However, the appeal was rejected on 10.03.2025, because it was filed after the allowed time limit under Section 107 of the GST Act, 2017.
However, the company was still dissatisfied with the orders and hence filed an appeal in the high court challenging the impugned order. When the court observed the entire case deeply, it found that the company was not given any chance to represent its side in the original assessment order dated 24.07.2023. The High Court also took reference from an earlier hearing on the same matter, where the court quashed the assessment orders when the taxpayer was not heard, but on certain conditions. So, the court decided to give the same relief to the company here. Therefore, the court quashed the appellate order dated 10.03.2025, provided the company pays 25% of the disputed tax and also treated the quashed order as a continuation of the original show cause notice.
The petitioner had already paid 10% at the time of filing the appeal. Therefore, they have to pay the remaining 15% of the disputed tax in cash from the Electronic Cash Register within 30 days of receiving a copy of this order. After making the payment, the company must file a reply to the show cause notice (SCN). The tax officer must then conduct a fresh hearing and pass a new assessment order after listening to the petitioner properly. If the company fails to pay the 15% disputed tax or does not file the reply, the High Court order will be treated as if the writ petition were dismissed. Then the tax department can immediately start recovery proceedings against the petitioner as per the GST laws. The Court did not award any costs to either party.
About Author

Saloni Kumari
Content Writer
Saloni is a Content Writer with 2+ years of experience at studycafe.in. She writes legal, taxation, and finance related content including GST, Income Tax etc. Skilled in translating complex judicial pronouncements and regulatory developments into clear, and reader-friendly articles. Experienced in covering judgements of ITAT, High Court, GSTAT, and news related to Income Tax, GST, and corporate law. She can be reached at [email protected].
Saloni is a Content Writer with 2+ years of experience at studycafe.in. She writes legal, taxation, and finance related content including GST, Income Tax etc. Skilled in translating complex judicial pronouncements and regulatory developments into clear, and reader-friendly articles. Experienced in covering judgements of ITAT, High Court, GSTAT, and news related to Income Tax, GST, and corporate law. She can be reached at [email protected].
StudyCafe
Delhi, Delhi, India
2485My Recent Articles
- Trust’s Sections 12AB and 80G Registration Cannot Be Denied Before Charitable Project Is Completed, Holds ITATPremium
- ITAT Says Identity and Creditworthiness Irrelevant Where Loan Was Directly Paid to Haryana Mining DepartmentPremium
- Earlier Rejection Cannot Be Sole Ground to Reject Fresh Section 12AB and 80G Registration Applications, Says ITATPremium
- Cash Deposited During Demonetisation Cannot Be Taxed Under Section 69A if Linked to Business, Holds ITAT Premium
- ITAT Condones 1,731-Day Delay, Remands Cancer Trust's Section 12A Registration Application for Fresh ConsiderationPremium
Up Next
Loading suggestions…
Recent Posts

All Posts

Recent Posts

All Posts








