Case Details: Tvl. Apple Pharmacy vs. Assistant Commissioner (ST), Coimbatore (2025) 37 Centax 98 (Mad.)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- C. Saravanan, J.
- Shri S.Kannan, for the Petitioner.
- Ms Amirthapoonkodi Dinakaran, Govt. Adv., for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
The petitioner challenged an assessment order confirming CGST and SGST demands, stating that the order had been passed ex parte after the petitioner did not respond to the DRC-01 notice. The record showed that the jurisdictional authority had subsequently issued a suo motu rectification and, after such rectification, confirmed the same demands. The petitioner contended that the assessment as modified by rectification continued to remain ex parte and sought permission to file a reply to the DRC-01 and requested fresh adjudication on merits, while also seeking liberty to pursue any available remedy under the interest or penalty waiver provision. The matter was accordingly placed before the High Court.
High Court Held
The High Court held that the impugned assessment, as modified by the rectification, had been made ex parte and warranted a fresh opportunity to the petitioner. The Court permitted the petitioner to file a reply to the DRC-01 within 30 days. It directed the jurisdictional authority to undertake a fresh adjudication on merits in terms of Section 73, read with Sections 75 and 128A of the CGST Act and the Tamil Nadu GST Act. The Court also granted liberty to the petitioner to work out any remedy available under the interest or penalty waiver provision.
