Raj Waterscape Properties Private Limited Vs State Tax Officer Group Xi

(i) WP No.8162 of 2026 : Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the Order in GST APL -02 dated 08.01.2026 bearing reference no.ZD330126048932H issued by the 2nd Respondent, to quash the same and direct the 2nd Respondent to restore the Appeal filed by the Petitioner.

¶17

(ii) WP No.8179 of 2026: Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the second respondent’s order in GST APL 02 dated 08.01.2026 bearing

¶18

Page1 of 6

¶19

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

¶20

WP Nos. 8162 and 8179 of 2026

¶21

reference No.ZD3301260488874, to quash the same.

¶22

For Petitioner(s):	Mr.Adithya Reddy (in both the petitions)
For Respondent(s):	Ms.Amirtha Poonkodi Dinakaran, Government Advocate (in both the petitions)

¶23

COMMON ORDER

¶24

In these Writ Petitions, the petitioner has challenged the respective impugned Appeal Rejection orders both dated 08.01.2026 passed by the second respondent whereby the Appeals both dated 22.09.2025 against Assessment orders dated 23.05.2025 and 24.05.2025 passed by the first Respondent for the respective Tax periods 2021-2022 and 2022-2023 have been rejected on the ground of limitation.

¶25

Insofar as the order dated 23.05.2025 passed for the Tax period 2021 – 2022 is concerned the Appeal was filed of the last date of the condonable period which expired on 22.09.2025. The Appeal Memo enclosed an annexure for condonation of delay. However, the Appeal has been rejected on the ground that there is a delay in submission of such Appeal.

¶26

Similarly, the Appeal against order dated 24.05.2025 passed for the Tax Period 2022-2023, the Appeal was filed on 22.09.2025 i.e., one day before

¶27

Page2 of 6

¶28

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

¶29

WP Nos. 8162 and 8179 of 2026

¶30

the expiry of the condonable period of limitation.

¶31

Therefore, the Appeals filed by the Petitioner, in both of these Writ

¶32

Petitions, indicates that the Petitioner has filed an annexure for condonation of delay.

¶33

It is noticed that the Petitioner, in both of these Writ Petitions, had already pre-deposited 10% of the disputed tax, on 22.09.2025 at the time of filing of the appeals.

¶34

Thus, the rejection of the Appeals on the ground of limitation cannot be sustained.

¶35

Considering the fact that the Assessment orders are detailed orders and therefore the balance to balance the interest of both parties, namely, the Assessee and the Revenue, respective Appeal Rejection Orders passed by the second Respondent challenged in the respective Writ Petitions are set aside and the cases are remitted back to the second Respondent to pass fresh orders on merits and without further reference to the limitation.

¶36

Page3 of 6

¶37

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

¶38

WP Nos. 8162 and 8179 of 2026

¶39