The Hon’ble Madras High Court in Eximio Services and Solutions Pvt. Ltd. v. The Superintendent of GST & Central Excise [W.P. No. 20608 of 2025 dated June 11, 2025] held that although the petitioner bypassed the appellate remedy, liberty is granted to file an appeal along with 25% pre-deposit and the department must allow withdrawal of such amount from the frozen bank account for compliance.
Facts:
Eximio Services and Solutions Pvt. Ltd. (“the Petitioner”) is a registered person under GST who challenged the Order-in-Original dated August 27, 2024 issued by the 1st Respondent and the consequential bank attachment notice dated April 4, 2025 issued by the 2nd Respondent.
The Superintendent of GST & Central Excise (“the Respondent”) issued the above orders, following assessment proceedings against the Petitioner, resulting in demand and attachment of the Petitioner’s bank account.
The Petitioner contended that it had duly filed GST returns and participated in the personal hearing. It was further submitted that GST was paid by the Petitioner to the landlord on rent, and the landlord had in turn remitted such tax to the Government. However, the landlord recorded the transaction as a B2C supply instead of a B2B transaction, causing the credit not reflected in the Petitioner’s GSTR-2A. Despite submission of documentary evidence proving payment of tax, the Order-in-Original was passed without considering such materials and without granting a personal hearing, in violation of principles of natural justice.
The Respondent contended that the writ petition was not maintainable since an appellate remedy was available to the Petitioner, which was not availed. The Petitioner should have challenged the order before the appropriate appellate authority instead of directly invoking writ jurisdiction.
Issue:
Whether writ petition maintainable against an assessment order and consequential bank‑attachment notice, when alternative appellate remedy is available?
Held:
The Hon’ble Madras High Court in W.P. No. 20608 of 2025 held as under:
- Observed that, the petitioner had an alternative remedy under the CGST Act to file an appeal before the appellate authority against the Order-in-Original.
- Noted that, the petitioner had bypassed the statutory remedy and directly approached the High Court.
- Held that, the writ petition was not maintainable at this stage and accordingly dismissed it.
- However, granted liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal before the appellate authority within four weeks from receipt of the order, subject to deposit of 25% of the disputed tax (inclusive of 15% over and above the statutory 10% deposit).
- Further noted that that if funds are available in the frozen bank account, the petitioner shall be permitted to withdraw up to 25% of the disputed tax to comply with the pre-deposit condition and directed further that upon submission of proof of payment of the 25% amount, the Respondents shall immediately defreeze the bank account.
CLICK HERE FOR OFFICIAL JUDGMENT COPY
(Author can be reached at info@a2ztaxcorp.com)
DISCLAIMER: The views expressed are strictly of the author and A2Z Taxcorp LLP. The contents of this article are solely for informational purpose and for the reader’s personal non-commercial use. It does not constitute professional advice or recommendation of firm. Neither the author nor firm and its affiliates accepts any liabilities for any loss or damage of any kind arising out of any information in this article nor for any actions taken in reliance thereon. Further, no portion of our article or newsletter should be used for any purpose(s) unless authorized in writing and we reserve a legal right for any infringement on usage of our article or newsletter without prior permission.
