Ex-parte GST assessment and appeal orders set aside for remand despite expiry of limitation.

The petitioner challenged an original ex-parte order dated 22.02.2025 and a subsequent appeal order dated 30.01.2026.

The petitioner contended that these orders were issued without providing an adequate hearing.

Following the tax demand, the department recovered a total of Rs. 3,87,340/- (Rs. 1,93,670/- each for CGST and SGST) from the petitioner’s Electronic Liability Ledger, which the petitioner claimed exceeded 25% of the total tax demand.

The writ petition was filed shortly after the expiration of the limitation period.

1. Whether the impugned orders were passed in violation of the principles of natural justice due to a lack of hearing.

2. Whether the recovery of an amount exceeding 25% of the tax demand warrants a remand for fresh consideration.

The court primarily applied the principles of natural justice, specifically the right to a reasonable opportunity to be heard before an adverse order is passed.

Procedural fairness regarding the limitation period under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the impact of pre-deposit/recovery (amounting to over 25% of the demand) as a condition for re-examining the merits of a tax assessment.

The court observed that the impugned orders were issued ex-parte without hearing the petitioner.

Although there was a delay in filing the petition beyond the limitation period, the court took note of the significant recovery already made from the petitioner’s Electronic Liability Ledger.

By linking the restoration of the case to the fact that the department had already secured a substantial portion (over 25%) of the disputed tax demand, the court determined that the interests of the revenue were protected while the petitioner’s right to a fair hearing was restored.

Consequently, the court found it appropriate to quash the orders to allow for a merits-based adjudication.

The holding is subject to the verification that the recovered amount exceeds 25% of the total demand.

The 2nd respondent was directed to issue a fresh order within three months after providing a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner.

No costs were awarded, and connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.