logo

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size  Show / Hide

24

  •            

 
CDJ 2026 MHC 1000 print Preview print Next print
Case No : W.P. No. 3539 of 2026 & W.M.P. No. 3963 of 2026, W.M.P. No. 3964 of 2026
Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C. SARAVANAN
Parties : Porkodi Versus The State Tax Officer (ST), Perambalur Assessment Circle, Perambalur
Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioner: A. Azhageson, Advocate. For the Respondent: T.N.C. Kaushik, Additional Government Pleader.
Date of Judgment : 09-02-2026
Head Note :-
Constitution of India - Article 226 -
Summary :-
Mistral API responded but no summary was generated.
Judgment :-

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the impugned proceedings of the Respondent in GSTIN 33DTKPS6119C1ZO/2019-20 dated 31.08.2024 and quash the same.)

1. Mr.T.N.C.Kaushik, learned Additional Government Pleader takes notice for the Respondent.

2. This Writ Petition is being disposed of at the stage of admission itself with the consent of the learned counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader for the Respondent.

3. In this Writ Petition, the Petitioner has challenged the impugned Order dated 31.08.2024, which was preceded by a Show Cause Notice dated 15.12.2020 wherein the Petitioner was called upon to appear for personal hearing. However, the Petitioner had not taken advantage of the same and thus, suffered the impugned Order dated 31.08.2024.

4. The Petitioner was also issued with Reminders dated 20.08.2024 and 26.08.2024, calling upon the Petitioner to file a reply and to appear for a personal hearing on 23.08.2024 and 28.08.2024 respectively. The Petitioner however neither filed any reply nor appeared for the personal hearings fixed on 23.08.2024, 28.08.2024 and 22.08.2025. Thus, the impugned Order has been passed.

5. It is noticed that the limitation for filing an appeal under Section 107 of the respective GST enactments, 2017 against the impugned Order has already expired. The present Writ Petition has been filed only on 31.01.2026.

6. At this stage, the learned counsel for the Petitioner submit that the Petitioner is willing to pre-deposit 50% of the disputed tax as a condition for denovo adjudication.

7. Under similar circumstances, Orders have been quashed and cases have been remitted back to the Respondent to pass a fresh order on terms subject to such Assessee depositing 25% to 100% of the disputed tax depending upon the length of delay in approaching the Court. I do not find any reason to take a different view in this case.

8. Therefore, to balance the interest of both parties viz., the Assessee and the Revenue, the case is remitted back to the Respondent to pass a fresh order on merits subject to the Petitioner depositing 50% of the disputed tax in cash or from the Petitioner's Electronic Cash Register within a period of thirty (30) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

9. Within such time, the Petitioner shall also file a reply to the Show Cause Notice dated 15.12.2020 together with requisite documents to substantiate the case by treating the impugned Order dated 31.08.2024 as an addendum to the Show Cause Notice dated 15.12.2020.

10. In case the Petitioner complies with the above stipulations, the Respondent shall proceed to pass a final order on merits and in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of three (3) months of such reply/pre-deposit. Subject to the Petitioner complying with the above stipulations, the attachment of the bank account of the Petitioner shall also stand automatically vacated.

11. It is made clear that bank attachment shall be lifted subject to the Petitioner depositing 50% of the disputed tax as ordered above and the Petitioner not being in arrears of any other amount for any other tax period barring the amount demanded under the impugned Order.

12. In case the Petitioner fails to comply with any of the stipulations, the Respondent is at liberty to proceed against the Petitioner to recover the tax in accordance with law as if this Writ Petition was dismissed in limine today.

13. Needless to state, before passing any such order, the Respondent shall give due notice to the Petitioner.

14. This Writ Petition stands disposed of with the above observations. No costs. Connected Writ Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

 
  CDJLawJournal