Dhinesh Kumar Mohandass vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer -I / Deputy Commercial Tax Officer

Held

The Court quashed the impugned Demand Order dated 13.12.2025 and remitted the case back to the respondent for de novo adjudication. This decision was made subject to the petitioner depositing 25% of the disputed tax, less any amount already deposited, in cash from their Electronic Cash Register within thirty days of receiving the order. The petitioner was also directed to file a reply to the Show Cause Notice dated 25.09.2025, along with supporting documents, within the same period, treating the impugned order as an addendum to the SCN. The respondent is to pass a fresh order on merits within three months of receiving the reply and pre-deposit. Failure by the petitioner to comply would allow the respondent to proceed with recovery as if the writ petition was dismissed. The respondent must provide due notice before passing any order. The issue of whether any recovery had already been made was not definitively resolved.

Facts

The petitioner, M. Dinesh Kumar Mohandass, proprietor of Tvl. Jayalakshmi Oil and Dhall Mill, filed a writ petition challenging a Demand Order in Form GST DRC-07, dated 13.12.2025, issued by the Deputy State Tax Officer-I under Section 73(9) of the TNGST/CGST Act, 2017, for the financial year 2021-22. This order followed a Show Cause Notice (SCN) dated 25.09.2025, for which the petitioner did not avail the personal hearing. The petitioner filed the writ petition on 25.08.2026, after the limitation period for filing an appeal under Section 107 of the GST enactments had expired. The petitioner expressed willingness to pre-deposit 25% of the disputed tax for de novo adjudication.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned Demand Order dated 13.12.2025, passed under Section 73(9) of the TNGST/CGST Act, 2017, is liable to be quashed due to procedural irregularities and the petitioner's failure to avail the personal hearing, despite the expiry of the appeal period. Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that they are willing to pre-deposit 25% of the disputed tax as a condition for de novo adjudication, subject to verification of any amount already recovered. They have made an endorsement to this effect. Respondent's contention: The learned Special Government Pleader was unable to confirm whether any recovery had been made. No other arguments were recorded for the respondent.