logo

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size  Show / Hide
24

  •            

 
CDJ 2026 MHC 2233 print Preview print print
Court : High Court of Judicature at Madras
Case No : W.P. No. 6560 of 2026 & W.M.P. Nos. 7139 & 7140 of 2026
Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C. SARAVANAN
Parties : Tvl. AG Pharmacy, Represented by its Proprietor, Sundararajan, Salem, Versus The State Tax Officer, Hasthampatty Assessment Circle, Salem
Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioner: M/s. S. Vishnupriya, Advocates. For the Respondent: Mrs. P. Selvi, Government Advocate.
Date of Judgment : 19-02-2026
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, calling for the records on the files of the Respondent herein issued vide order Ref. No. GSTIN: 33ATKPS0754N1Z7/2022-23 dated 15th July, 2025 along with the summary of the order in Form GST-DRC-07 reference no. ZD3307251371896 dated 15th July, 2025 passed for the assessment year between April 2022 to March 2023, quash the same.)

1. Mrs.P.Selvi, learned Government Advocate, takes notice for the respondent.

2. With the consent of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate for the respondent, this writ petition is being disposed of at the time of admission.

3. In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the impugned Order dated 15.07.2025 along with the summary order issued by the respondent for the Assessment Year 2022-2023

4. By the impugned order, the demand proposed in the Show Cause Notice in DRC-01 dated 06.05.2025 has been confirmed, as the petitioner failed to reply to the said notice.

5. It is noticed that the statutory limitation for filing an appeal under Section 107 of the respective GST enactments, against the impugned order has already expired. The present writ petition has been filed only on 17.02.2026.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has already paid the entire tax due. In this connection, the learned counsel drew the Court’s attention to Page Nos.10, 11 & 12 of the typed set of papers, which are reproduced below:

                  

                  

                  

7. The Learned Government Advocate for the respondent is unable to confirm the aforesaid payment by the petitioner.

8. The learned counsel for the petitioner, however, would submit that the petitioner is agreeable to a pre-deposit of 25%, and therefore, the learned counsel seeks one opportunity for de novo adjudication.

9. Since the impugned order was passed ex parte and the petitioner is willing to deposit 25% of the disputed tax, the case is remitted back to the respondent to pass a fresh order on merits, subject to verification by the respondent that the petitioner has already paid the entire tax due.

10. If the respondent is of the prima facie view that the tax amounts due have not been paid, the respondent shall issue a notice to the petitioner. Upon receipt of the said notice, the petitioner shall file a reply to the impugned Show Cause Notice dated 06.05.2025, treating the impugned Order dated 15.07.2025 as an addendum along with supporting documents, and deposit 25% of the disputed tax confirmed by the impugned Order dated 15.07.2025, within a period of 30 days.

11. On receipt of the said reply / pre-deposit, the respondent shall pass a fresh order on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of three months.

12. In case the respondent is of the view that the petitioner has already paid the entire tax due, no further pre-deposit is required.

13. 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.

14. This writ petition stands disposed of with the above directions. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs.
 
  CDJLawJournal