Disposed

Nayeem Cashews v. The Superintendent of Cgst and Central Excise

Madras HC10 Nov 2025WP(MD)/31879/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A cashew trader challenged an ex parte GST assessment order as non-speaking and sought a fresh assessment. The court instead allowed it to file an appeal within thirty days without limitation, subject to paying 10% of disputed tax as predeposit.

What did the court decide?

Permission to file appeal within 30 days without limitation, on predeposit of 10% of disputed tax; no costs; connected MPs closed.

Nayeem Cashews Vs The Superintendent of Cgst and Central… — GST and Indirect Tax | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

W.P(MD)No.31879 of 2025

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 10.11.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN

¶6

W.P(MD)No.31879 of 2025 & W.M.P.(MD)Nos.25066 & 25068 of 2025

¶7

M/s.Nayeem Cashews, Represented by its Proprietor H.Anzar, GSTIN 33ACZPA767G1ZE, 2/50-55, Kottarathuvilai Kulapuram, Vilavancode, Kanyakumari-629153.

¶8

... Petitioner

¶9

Vs.

¶10

The Superintendent of CGST and Central Excise, Marthandam Range 48/1-4, First Floor, Sivaraj Building, Tower Junction, Nagercoil-629001. ... Respondent

¶11

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records on the file of the respondent in Order in Original No. GST/ TNVL/ SUPDT/MTM /60/2023 dated 22.12.2023 DIN-20231 259X O0000000A10 for the assessment year July 2017 - March 2022 under section 73 of TNGST Act 2017 and to quash the same as cryptic, non-speaking, illegal , arbitrary, wholly without jurisdiction and direct the respondent to pass assessment order afresh after affording opportunity of being heard.

¶12

1/4

¶13

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶14

W.P(MD)No.31879 of 2025

¶15

For Petitioner : Mr.N.Sudalai Muthu

¶16

For Respondent : Mr.R.Gowri Shankar

¶17

ORDER

¶18

Heard both sides.

¶19

2.The petitioner suffered an exparte order at the hands of the respondent.

¶20

The order was passed on 22.12.2023. Appeal period has already expired. The petitioner is permitted to file an appeal within 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The same shall be entertained without reference to limitation. Of-course, the petitioner has to pay 10% of the disputed tax amount as predeposit. If the petitioner fails to remit the predeposit amount and / or file an appeal within four weeks as mentioned above, the benefit of this order shall stand recalled automatically.

¶21

3.This writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶22

10.11.2025 Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/ No rmi

¶23

2/4

¶24

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶25

W.P(MD)No.31879 of 2025

¶26

¶27

The Superintendent of CGST and Central Excise, Marthandam Range 48/1-4, First Floor, Sivaraj Building, Tower Junction, Nagercoil-629001.

¶28

3/4

¶29

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶30

W.P(MD)No.31879 of 2025

¶31

G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.

¶32

rmi

¶33

W.P(MD)No.31879 of 2025

¶34

10.11.2025

¶35

4/4

¶36

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Nayeem Cashews v. The Superintendent of Cgst and Central Excise

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nayeem Cashews v. The Superintendent of Cgst and Central Excise

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Saraswathi Vs R.Govindarajalu

A.Athinarayanan Vs The District Collector

Karthick M Vs The Commercial Tax Officer

M.S.Sheikh Fathima Vs The Deputy Collector Stamps/Collector

M/s.P.S.Thinakaran Store, Vs The Assistant Commissioner (St)

V.Malaiyandi Vs The District Collector