logo

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size  Show / Hide
24

  •            

 
CDJ 2026 MHC 1011 print Preview print Next print
Court : High Court of Judicature at Madras
Case No : W.P. No. 35257 of 2025 & W.M.P. Nos. 39467 & 39470 of 2025
Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C. SARAVANAN
Parties : P.K. Silks & Readymadesz, Represented by its Proprietor, Palaniappan Kandasamy Vijayanandh, Salem Versus The Commissioner of GST (ST), Salem & Another
Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioner: Dr. S. Sankar Ganesh, Advocate. For the Respondents: C. Harsharaj, Special Government Pleader.
Date of Judgment : 09-01-2026
Head Note :-
Constitution of India - Article 226 -
Summary :-
1. Statutes / Acts / Rules Mentioned:
- Article 226 of the Constitution of India
- Section 73
- Section 107 of the respective GST enactments, 2017
- GST DRC‑07
- GST DRC‑01

2. Catch Words:
- limitation
- appeal
- quash
- remand
- pre‑deposit
- bank attachment
- show cause notice
- fresh adjudication
- relief

3. Summary:
The petitioner filed a writ under Article 226 seeking a writ of certiorari and mandamus to unfreeze a bank account and quash an order dated 07‑02‑2025 passed under GST provisions. The petitioner argued for an opportunity to reply to the show‑cause notice and offered to pre‑deposit 25% of the disputed tax. The court noted that the limitation period for filing an appeal under Section 107 of the GST Act had expired. Relying on precedent where similar orders were set aside, the court quashed the impugned order and remitted the matter to the revenue authority for fresh adjudication, subject to the petitioner depositing 25% of the disputed tax within 30 days and filing a reply to the show‑cause notice. The bank attachment would be lifted upon compliance; otherwise, recovery proceedings may continue. The petition was disposed of with no costs.

4. Conclusion:
Petition Allowed
Judgment :-

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of impugned order under Section 73 dated 07.02.2025 vide GSTIN/ID:33AFLPV9239A1Z9/2020-21 passed by the 2nd respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the Branch Manager, Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank Limited, Mettur Branch to forthwith unfreeze the bank account bearing account No.363509344791928 pertaining of the petitioner.)

1. In this Writ Petition, the Petitioner has challenged the impugned Order dated 07.02.2025, in Form GST DRC-07 passed for the tax period 2021-2022 by the 2nd respondent, whereby, the demand proposed in Show Cause Notice in Form GST DRC-01 dated 08.11.2024 has been confirmed against the petitioner as the petitioner failed to file reply to the said Show Cause Notice.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner may be given one opportunity to file a reply and defend the case that the case may be remitted back to the respondents for fresh adjudication.

3. The Department submitted that the entire dispute tax recovery varies itself, however, unable to confirm the same.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that the petitioner is willing to pre-deposit 25% of the disputed tax confirmed by the impugned order for such de-novo adjudication.

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 19.08.2025.

6. Under similar circumstances, Orders have been quashed and cases have been remitted back to pass a fresh order on terms subject to such Assessee depositing 10% 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.

7. Therefore, to balance the interest of both parties viz., the Assessee and the Revenue, the impugned order is quashed and the case is remitted back to the 2nd Respondent to pass a fresh order on merits subject to the Petitioner depositing 25% of the disputed tax in cash 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.

8. Within such time, the Petitioner shall also file a reply to the Show Cause Notice in GST DRC-01 dated 08.11.2024 together with requisite documents to substantiate the case by treating the impugned Order dated 07.02.2025 as an addendum to the Show Cause Notice dated 08.11.2024.

9. In case the Petitioner complies with the above stipulations, the 2nd 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.

10. It is made clear that bank attachment shall be lifted subject to the petitioner depositing 25% of the disputed tax as ordered above and the petitioner not being in arrears of any other amount barring the amount demanded under the impugned Order.

11. 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.

12. Needless to state, any tax amount already recovered / paid by the petitioner against the tax liability confirmed by the impugned order shall be set off and adjusted towards the pre-deposit of 25% as ordered above, subject to verification.

13. Needless to state, before passing any such order, the 2nd 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