logo

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size  Show / Hide
24

  •            

 
CDJ 2026 MHC 1002 print Preview print print
Court : High Court of Judicature at Madras
Case No : W.P. No. 4351 of 2026 & W.M.P. Nos. 4836 & 4838 of 2026
Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C. SARAVANAN
Parties : Jayabal Selvaraj, Proprietor of M/s. Tvl. Premier Machine Tools, Coimbatore Versus The State Tax Officer (ST), Ganapathy Assessment Circle, Coimbatore
Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioner: R. Ramkumar, Advocate. For the Respondent: Amirtha Poonkodi Dinakaran, Government Advocate.
Date of Judgment : 09-02-2026
Head Note :-
Constitution of India - Article 226 -
Judgment :-

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus call for the records in reference in ZD330225064280U dated 06.02.2025 for the financial year 2020-2021, quash the same and direct the Respondent to adjudicate the issue in accordance with law.)

1. Ms.Amirtha Poonkodi Dinakaran, learned Government Advocate 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 Government Advocate for the Respondent.

3. In this Writ Petition, the Petitioner has challenged the impugned Order dated 06.02.2025, which was preceded by a Show Cause Notice in GST DRC-01 dated 18.11.2024 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 06.02.2025.

4. The Petitioner was also issued with Reminder on 23.12.2024, 02.01.2025 and 13.01.2025 which called upon the Petitioner to file a reply and to appear for a personal hearing. However, the Petitioner neither filed any reply nor appeared for the personal hearing despite multiple opportunities. 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 05.02.2026.

6. At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a portion of the disputed tax demand has already been recovered from the Petitioner's Electronic Cash Register.

7. On the other hand, the learned Government Advocate for the respondent submits that they are unable to confirm the same.

8. 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.

9. 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 25% 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.

10. Needless to state, any amount already recovered from the petitioner shall be adjusted towards the 25% pre-deposit, subject to verification by the respondent.

11. Within such time, the Petitioner shall also file a reply to the Show Cause Notice in GST DRC-01 dated 18.11.2024 together with requisite documents to substantiate the case by treating the impugned Order dated 06.02.2025 as an addendum to the Show Cause Notice dated 18.11.2024.

12. 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.

13. 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 for any other tax period barring the amount demanded under the impugned Order.

14. 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.

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

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