2025 (7) TMI 775 - HC - GST

Challenge to order u/s 73 of the respective Goods and Services Tax Enactments 2017 - appeal dismissed on the grounds of delay and on account of the failure on part of the petitioner to pre-deposit the amount required under Section 107 of the respective Goods and Services Tax Act - HELD THAT - A challenge to the impugned order at this distant point of time on merits or on the account of violation of principles of natural justice cannot be countenanced. Therefore it is liable to be rejected. However under similar circumstances this Court has come to rescue the persons like the petitioner by putting such persons on terms. I find no reasons to take a different stand. The petitioner is directed to deposit 25% of the disputed tax of Rs. 5, 23, 09, 082/- within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Subject to payment of the aforesaid amount within such time the impugned order shall stands quashed. However the petitioner shall file a detailed reply to the show cause notice by treating the impugned order dated 30.08.2024 as addendum to the aforesaid notice issued in Form GST DRC 01 within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order - Petition disposed off.

Summary

The Madras High Court addressed a writ petition challenging an order dated 30.08.2024 under Section 73 of the Goods and Services Tax (GST) Act, following a show cause notice issued in Form GST DRC 01. The petitioner's belated appeal was dismissed for delay and failure to pre-deposit the amount mandated under Section 107 of the GST Act.The petitioner had pre-deposited less than 5% of the disputed tax demand of Rs. 5,23,09,082/-, and sought permission to explain the case upon payment of an additional 5%. The respondents argued the petition was barred by latches due to the petitioner's delay and non-compliance with pre-deposit requirements.The Court held that a challenge to the impugned order at this late stage, whether on merits or natural justice grounds, "cannot be countenanced" and is liable to be rejected. However, invoking its discretion under similar precedents, the Court allowed the petitioner relief on terms. The petitioner was directed to deposit 25% of the disputed tax within six months, and file a detailed reply treating the impugned order as an addendum to the original show cause notice within 30 days of the order's receipt. Upon compliance, the impugned order would stand quashed, and respondents were directed to pass fresh orders "on merits and in accordance with law after hearing the petitioner." Failure to comply would result in dismissal of the petition and recovery proceedings.The writ petition was disposed of accordingly, with no costs.