Ram Coconut Traders vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer Ii

Held

The Court quashed the impugned order dated 23.12.2025 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 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 27.09.2025, along with supporting documents, treating the impugned order as an addendum to the show cause notice. The respondent was instructed to pass a final order on merits within three months of the petitioner's compliance. If the petitioner failed to comply with these stipulations, the respondent was at liberty to recover the tax as if the Writ Petition was dismissed. The respondent was also directed to provide due notice to the petitioner before passing any order. The Court expressly left undecided the merits of the tax demand itself.

Facts

The petitioner, Ram Coconut Traders, challenged an order dated 23.12.2025 and a consequential DRC-07 uploaded on the same date by the Deputy State Tax Officer-II, Pattukkottai. The impugned order was preceded by a Show Cause Notice (DRC-01) dated 27.09.2025, which also called for a personal hearing. The petitioner did not avail the personal hearing and consequently suffered the order. The petitioner filed the present Writ Petition on 21.08.2026, 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 demand.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order dated 23.12.2025 and consequential DRC-07 are liable to be quashed as illegal, arbitrary, and against the principles of natural justice, considering the petitioner's failure to attend the personal hearing and the expiry of the appeal period? The petitioner argued that they are willing to pre-deposit 25% of the disputed tax demand for de novo adjudication, implicitly seeking an opportunity to present their case. The respondent, represented by the Government Advocate (Taxes), did not record any specific arguments but was present and took notice. The Court's decision hinges on whether to grant relief despite the procedural lapses and expired appeal period, given the petitioner's offer to deposit a portion of the demand.