Case Title: Tvl. Delux Super Market v. State Tax Officer, Thuckalay – 1 Assessment Circle & Deputy Commissioner (GST Appeals) (State Tax), Madurai & Tirunelveli
Court: Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
Petition Number: W.P.(MD) No. 21402 of 2025, Order dated 06.08.2025
Relevant Sections: Sections 73, 75(7), and 107 of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017
Category: Assessment – Appeal – Limitation – Excess demand beyond show cause notice
Facts (Para 1–4):
Tvl. Delux Super Market, represented by its proprietor John Archibald Donald, challenged the assessment order dated 26.02.2025 issued under Section 73 of the TNGST Act for FY 2020–21. The order was preceded by a DRC-01A notice dated 26.11.2024, to which the petitioner responded and attended a personal hearing. The appeal filed under Section 107 suffered a marginal delay of 15 days beyond the condonable period and was summarily rejected by the Appellate Authority via Form GST APL-02 on 10.07.2025. The petitioner approached the High Court seeking quashing of the order as cryptic, excessive, and without jurisdiction.
Questions Before the Court (Para 5):
Whether the assessment order exceeded the scope of the original show cause notice under Section 73 and whether the delay of 15 days in filing the appeal should have been condoned considering the circumstances.
Observations (Para 5–9):
The Court referred to the Division Bench judgment in Tvl. GLO Shipping Logistics Pvt. Ltd. v. State Tax Officer (2025) 29 Centax 292 (Mad.), where it was held that as per Section 75(7) of the GST Act, the final demand cannot exceed the quantum proposed in the show cause notice. The Court observed that in the present case, the petitioner’s assessment order appeared to travel beyond the scope of the notice, thereby warranting judicial interference.
Further, considering that the delay in appeal filing was merely 15 days and that the appeal was otherwise maintainable, the Court found the rejection order arbitrary. The Deputy Commissioner (GST Appeals) was impleaded suo motu as a necessary party.
Judgment (Para 7–11):
The High Court quashed the order dated 10.07.2025 passed by the Deputy Commissioner (GST Appeals), which had rejected the appeal on limitation grounds. The appellate authority was directed to hear and decide the appeal on merits in accordance with law, ignoring the delay. The Court also directed that since 10% of the disputed tax was already deposited, the attachment of the petitioner’s bank account be vacated forthwith.
Accordingly, the writ petition was allowed with no order as to costs.
Summary of Referred Case:
| Case Referred | Court & Citation | Key Finding / Verdict |
|---|---|---|
| Tvl. GLO Shipping Logistics Pvt. Ltd. v. State Tax Officer | Division Bench, Madras High Court, (2025) 29 Centax 292 (Mad.) | Assessment demand cannot exceed the amount proposed in the show cause notice under Section 75(7); opportunity must be provided to the assessee to respond, and limitation must be considered fairly. |
Between Fine Lines (Practical Takeaway):
This judgment reinforces that the adjudicating authority cannot enhance the tax demand beyond the scope of the show cause notice, as it violates Section 75(7) of the GST Act. Minor delays in filing appeals should be condoned when the taxpayer has acted bona fide, ensuring substantive justice over procedural rigidity. It also reiterates that once the mandatory pre-deposit is made, coercive actions like bank attachment should not continue.
Disclaimer – “The above summary is for academic purpose only; not formal legal opinion. Seek professional opinion before application. Author or publisher or website shall not be responsible for any usage in any form.”
 of the GST Act.){kind=link}