Facts of the Case

M/s Gopalakrishnan Mythily, proprietrix of M/s Global Max, Karur, registered under GSTIN 33BFQPM1204L2ZF, was subjected to an Order-in-Original No. 03/2025-GST (SUPDT) dated 27.02.2025 passed by the Superintendent of Central GST and Central Excise, Karur-II Range, for the year 2020-2021. The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court, seeking to quash the order. During the hearing, it emerged that the petitioner had already paid the entire tax amount demanded and wished to challenge only the penalty component before the appellate authority, but the statutory appeal period had already lapsed by the time the writ was filed. The matter was heard and disposed of by a single Judge on 24.09.2025.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether an appeal confined solely to the penalty portion of an appealable GST order-in-original can be entertained after expiry of the limitation period.
  2. Whether the writ court should exercise discretion to condone the delay given the petitioner had already discharged the tax liability.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • The petitioner had already paid the entire tax amount confirmed under the order-in-original and sought to contest only the penalty imposed.
  • The appeal period under the statute had expired, but the delay was not deliberate and the petitioner should be permitted to pursue the statutory appellate remedy on the limited issue of penalty.

Respondent's Arguments

  • The order records that both sides were heard, but no specific opposition is noted to the petitioner being granted a limited window to file a belated appeal restricted to the penalty component.

Court Order / Findings

  • The Court noted that the order was appealable, that the petitioner had paid the entire tax amount, and that only the penalty was sought to be contested, though the appeal period had lapsed.
  • Taking into account the overall circumstances, the Court permitted the petitioner to file an appeal against the penalty within four weeks from receipt of the order, directing the appellate authority to entertain and dispose of it on merits if filed within that period.
  • The writ petition was disposed of with this liberty, leaving all contentions of the petitioner open, and with no order as to costs.

Important Clarification

  • Where an assessee has already discharged the confirmed tax liability and seeks to contest only the penalty portion, courts are willing to condone delay and permit a time-bound belated appeal in the interest of justice.
  • Such relief is conditional on filing within the fresh window granted, failing which the original limitation bar would apply.
  • The appellate authority is directed to decide the belated appeal strictly on merits rather than reject it on a technical limitation ground once the court-granted window is used.

Sections Involved

  • Section 107, CGST Act, 2017 — prescribes the limitation period for filing appeals against orders passed by an adjudicating authority, including for penalty.
  • Article 226, Constitution of India — invoked to seek writ relief and equitable extension of the appellate remedy.

Decision – In Favour of

Disposed of in part in favour of the assessee. The tax demand stood paid and unchallenged, but the petitioner was granted a fresh four-week window to appeal the penalty portion on merits.

Case Details

Court: Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court
Case No.: W.P(MD).No.26436 of 2025 (with W.M.P(MD).Nos.20525 and 20527 of 2025)
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice G.R. Swaminathan
Date of Decision: 24.09.2025

Link to Download the Order

Click here to view/download the full order

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.