HC Orders Fresh Hearing in GST Waiver Rejection Case
- Blog|News|GST & Customs|
- 2 Min Read
- By Taxmann
- |
- Last Updated on 12 May, 2026

Case Details: Sri Neelakanda Vinayaga urakkadai vs. Assistant Commissioner (ST) - [2026] 185 taxmann.com 688 (Madras)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- D. Bharatha Chakravarthy, J.
-
R. Maharajan for the Petitioner.
-
R.Suresh Kumar, Addl. Govt. Pleader for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
The petitioner challenged the assessment order issued in Form GST DRC-07 on the ground that there was a delay in filing GSTR-9, and certain other defects were noticed in compliance. Consequential proceedings were initiated under the waiver mechanism, culminating in an order in Form GST SPL-05, in which the waiver claim for interest and penalty was partly allowed and partly rejected. It was contended that although notice was issued in the waiver proceedings, the petitioner did not appear before the authority, and that the statute did not provide any specific appellate remedy against such waiver order. The petitioner therefore filed a writ petition seeking the setting aside of the SPL-05 order and prayed for a fresh consideration of the waiver claim with an opportunity to submit a reply and supporting documents. The matter was accordingly placed before the High Court.
High Court Held
The High Court held that since the impugned waiver order under Section 128A of the CGST Act and the Tamil Nadu GST Act had partly accepted and partly rejected the waiver claim, and no statutory appeal was available against such order. It was held that non-appearance despite issuance of notice did not preclude reconsideration, particularly when the order had civil consequences affecting interest and penalty liability. The Court further held that the petitioner ought to be permitted to appear before the same authority to present its case along with a reply and supporting documents. Accordingly, the SPL-05 order was set aside to the limited extent of reconsideration of the waiver claim, and the authority was directed to examine all contentions on facts and law and pass a fresh order in accordance with law.
List of Cases Referred to
- Ms. Kandan Hardware Mart v. Asstt. Commissioner (ST) (FAC) [2026] 182 taxmann.com 632/114 GST 267 (Mad) (para 3).
Disclaimer: The content/information published on the website is only for general information of the user and shall not be construed as legal advice. While the Taxmann has exercised reasonable efforts to ensure the veracity of information/content published, Taxmann shall be under no liability in any manner whatsoever for incorrect information, if any.

Taxmann Publications has a dedicated in-house Research & Editorial Team. This team consists of a team of Chartered Accountants, Company Secretaries, and Lawyers. This team works under the guidance and supervision of editor-in-chief Mr Rakesh Bhargava.
The Research and Editorial Team is responsible for developing reliable and accurate content for the readers. The team follows the six-sigma approach to achieve the benchmark of zero error in its publications and research platforms. The team ensures that the following publication guidelines are thoroughly followed while developing the content:
- The statutory material is obtained only from the authorized and reliable sources
- All the latest developments in the judicial and legislative fields are covered
- Prepare the analytical write-ups on current, controversial, and important issues to help the readers to understand the concept and its implications
- Every content published by Taxmann is complete, accurate and lucid
- All evidence-based statements are supported with proper reference to Section, Circular No., Notification No. or citations
- The golden rules of grammar, style and consistency are thoroughly followed
- Font and size that’s easy to read and remain consistent across all imprint and digital publications are applied

CA | CS | CMA