The Madras High Court has directed the Commissioner of GST, North Chennai, to appear personally on November 16, 2026, and explain concerns over the repeated non-appearance of counsel representing the Central authorities and requests for time even in cases covered by existing decisions.
The bench of Justice Krishnan Ramasamy passed the order on November 4, 2026, while hearing a writ petition filed by the assessee against the Assistant Commissioner of GST and Central Excise, Mylapore Division, Chennai North Commissionerate.
Buy Now: 210+ GST Judgments E-Magazine – October 2026
The Court specifically stated that the Commissioner should attend the proceedings to observe how counsel representing the State assisted the Court in disposing of matters.
At the outset, the High Court recorded that it was facing serious hardship because of the Central authorities. It observed that at least 90% of the matters were disposed of at the admission-list stage itself, but counsel representing the Central authorities had failed to appear on several occasions.
The observation reflected the Court’s experience with the proceedings before it. The order does not present this percentage as a statistical finding concerning all Central Government litigation.
The Court’s criticism also extended to the manner in which covered cases were being handled. It noted that counsel sought time to obtain instructions even in such matters, prompting it to question why the Central authorities were unable to appoint appropriate counsel.
Following these observations, Justice Ramasamy directed the Commissioner of GST, North Chennai, to appear on the next hearing date and provide an explanation.
The Court expressly clarified that the direction had been issued so that the Commissioner could watch the proceedings and observe how State counsel assisted the Court in disposing of matters.
The order thus required the senior departmental officer both to explain the concerns recorded by the Court and to observe firsthand the assistance being provided by counsel representing the State.
A significant aspect of the order is the Court’s objection to requests for time to obtain instructions in cases already covered by existing decisions.
Read alongside the observations about repeated non-appearance, the order indicates concerns about both attendance and preparedness. The Court expected departmental counsel to provide effective assistance when matters were taken up, including at the admission stage.
However, the order does not prescribe a new procedure for appointing counsel or direct a restructuring of the department’s legal representation. It also does not identify any particular earlier judgment as governing the company’s underlying GST dispute.
The three-page order focuses on departmental representation before the Court. It does not set out the factual or statutory grounds of the company’s substantive GST challenge.
Consequently, it contains no determination on any tax demand, input tax credit claim, refund entitlement, assessment or penalty issue. The writ petition was neither allowed nor dismissed through this order.
The Court also did not impose costs, record a contempt finding or order disciplinary action. The operative direction requires the Commissioner’s appearance and explanation in connection with the concerns about departmental representation.
The High Court posted the matter for November 16, 2026, and directed the Registry to issue the order copy on November 4 itself.
Membership Required to Access Case Details & Order Copy
To view the complete Case Details and Download Order Copy, you must have an active membership. Please subscribe to continue.
