HC Grants Relief from Ex Parte GST Order on 50% Deposit

GST • News • Case Chronicles

Ex Parte GST Order
Case Details: Porkodi vs. State Tax Officer (ST) (2026) 40 Centax 353 (Mad.)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

  • C. Saravanan, J.
  • Shri A. Azhageson, for the Petitioner.
  • Shri T.N.C. Kaushik, Additional Government Pleader, for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

The petitioner-assessee was issued a show cause notice calling for submission of reply and appearance for personal hearing under the GST. Subsequent reminders were issued by the authority requiring the petitioner to furnish reply and attend the scheduled hearings; however, the petitioner neither filed any response nor appeared before the authority. The petitioner did not file any appeal within the prescribed limitation period under Section 107 and the statutory remedy lapsed. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the High Court by way of a writ petition challenging the ex parte order. During the course of hearing, the petitioner submitted willingness to deposit 50% of the disputed tax for seeking de novo adjudication. The matter was accordingly placed before the High Court.

High Court Held

The High Court held that although the petitioner had failed to respond to the show cause notice and had approached the Court belatedly without availing the statutory remedy, the matter could be remitted in the interest of justice subject to appropriate conditions. It was observed that in similar circumstances, matters had been remanded upon deposit of a proportionate amount of disputed tax, and no deviation from such approach was warranted. The Court directed remand of the matter for fresh adjudication on merits subject to deposit of 50% of the disputed tax within the 30 days, and permitted the petitioner to file reply to the show cause notice by treating the impugned order as an addendum thereto. It was further held that upon compliance with the stipulated conditions and in absence of any other arrears, the bank attachment would stand vacated, failing which the department would be at liberty to proceed with recovery in accordance with law. The authority was also directed to afford opportunity of hearing and pass a reasoned order expeditiously.

Leave Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *