Indian Spices Vs. The State Tax Officer – Madras High Court

📋 Copy Citation

🧠 HeadNote & Summary

(2025) taxcode.in 244 HC

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS

Indian Spices
v.
The State Tax Officer

W.P.(MD) Nos.17853 & 17855 to 17858 of 2025 and W.M.P.(MD) Nos.13661, 13662, 13663, 13665, 13666, 13667, 13672, 13673, 13674 & 13676 of 2025
Decided on 01-Jul-25

Mr. Justice C. Saravanan

Add. Info:

For Appellant(s): Mr. S.Karunkar

For Respondent(s): Mr. R.Suresh Kumar

---

Judgment/Order:

COMMON ORDER

By this common order, these five Writ Petitions are disposed of.

2. In these Writ Petitions, the petitioner has challenged the respective impugned assessment orders, dated 16.06.2023, passed pursuant to the respective notices issued in DRC 01 and DRC 01A.

3. In the background is an inspection conducted at the petitioner’s premises on 09.06.2022, which led to issuance of above notices. The petitioner has replied to the respective notices that preceded the respective impugned orders in respect of the Assessment Years 2017-18, 2019-20 to 2021-22. The petitioner has, however, not replied to the notice that preceded the impugned order for the Assessment Year 2022-23.

4. The petitioner made an attempt in filing appeals against the respective impugned orders with delay of 68 days beyond the condonable period of limitation under Section 107 of the respective GST enactments and thus, the Appellate Commissioner has rejected in limine vide orders, dated 15.11.2024 29.11.2024.

5. Left with no other remedy, the petitioner has now approached this Court, as according to the petitioner has several records to substantiate that the orders passed by the respondents are without any merits.

6. It is further submitted that there has been a manifest violation of principles of natural justice, as the petitioner did not get any opportunity to file documents to substantiate the case.

7. The learned Additional Government Pleaders for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the petitioner had slept over the rights and rightly the appeals were dismissed on 29.11.2024 and 15.11.2024 and therefore, in the light of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Singh enterprises Vs CCE reported in (2008) 3 SCC 70 and in the case of CCE and Customs Vs.Hongo India (P) Limited reported in (2009) 5 SCC 791, the appeals were dismissed. Further, the petitioner, having slept over the rights, cannot expect the Court to come to rescue of the petitioner. Therefore, these Writ Petitions are not maintainable.

8. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents and having perused the orders impugned herein, this Court is inclined to come to the rescue of the petitioner partially on terms, subject to the petitioner depositing 15% of the disputed tax over and above 10% already deposited at the time of filing of appeals. The entire amount shall be paid in cash from the Electronic Cash Register of the petitioner within a period of thirty (30) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

9. If the petitioner complies with the same, the respective impugned orders shall stand quashed, in which case the petitioner has to file a reply to the respective notices that preceded the respective impugned orders, by treating the respective impugned orders as addendum to the respective show cause notices within the time stipulated above.

10. The 1^st respondent shall, thereafter, pass fresh orders within a period of six (6) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

11. In case the petitioner fails to comply with the conditions stipulated above, the respondents are at liberty to proceed against the petitioner as if this Writ Petition shall stand dismissed, in limine by this order.

12. It is made clear that the petitioner shall file necessary documents to substantiate the case and co-operate with the respondents in the de nova proceedings.

13. This Writ Petition is disposed of, with the above observations. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

01.07.2025

C.SARAVANAN, J.

---

Original judgment copy is available here.