logo

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size  Show / Hide
24

  •            

 
CDJ 2026 MHC 6076 My Notes print Preview print print
Court : Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
Case No : W.P. (MD). No. 21718 of 2026 & W.M.P. (MD). Nos. 16179 & 16182 of 2026
Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C. SARAVANAN
Parties : Ravi Muthuraj Versus The Deputy State Tax Officer-2, Tirunelveli & Another
Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioner: J.K. Jayaselan, Advocate. For the Respondents: R. Parthiban, Special Government Pleader.
Date of Judgment : 03-08-2026
Head Note :-
Constitution of India - Article 226 -
Judgment :-

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the first Respondent in his proceedings in GSTIN 33AVZPM2924M2ZV/2021-22 dated 30.12.2025 and quash the same, as it is illegal, without jurisdiction and in gross violation of Principles of Natural Justice.)

1. Mr.R.Parthiban, learned Special Government Pleader, takes notice for the respondents.

2. This Writ Petition is taken up for final hearing at the time of admission with the consent of the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents.

3. In this Writ Petition, the petitioner has challenged the Impugned Order dated 30.12.2025 bearing reference in 33AVZPM2924M2ZV/2021-22 passed by the first respondent, which was preceded by a Show Cause Notice in DRC 01 dated 15.09.2025, wherein the petitioner was also called upon to appear for personal hearing. However, the petitioner had not taken advantage of the same and thus, suffered the Impugned Order dated 30.12.2025.

4. 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 29.07.2026.

5. At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is willing to pre-deposit 25% of the disputed tax as a condition for de novo adjudication.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also made an endorsement to that effect in the Court Bundle, which is extracted hereunder:-

                   “The petitioner accepts to pay 25% of the disputed tax amount and the same may be considered by this Hon’ble Court.”

7. In view of the above, the impugned order is quashed and the case is remitted back to the first respondent to pass a fresh order 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 DRC 01 dated 15.09.2025 together with requisite documents to substantiate the case by treating the Impugned Order dated 30.12.2025 as an addendum to the Show Cause Notice dated 15.09.2025.

9. In case the petitioner complies with the above stipulations, the first 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.

10. In case the petitioner fails to comply with any of the stipulations, the respondents are 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.

11. Needless to state, before passing any such order, the first respondent shall give due notice to the petitioner.

12. This Writ Petition stands disposed of, with the above observations. No costs. Consequently, connected Writ Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
 
  CDJLawJournal