Tvl Rasi Hardwares vs. The Proper Officer/State Tax Officer

Held

The Court quashed the impugned order dated 09.12.2025 passed by the respondent. The case was remitted back to the respondent for fresh adjudication, 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 07.07.2025, along with supporting documents, treating the impugned order as an addendum to the show cause notice. If these conditions were met, the respondent was to pass a final order on merits within three months of the reply and pre-deposit. Failure to comply would allow the respondent to recover the tax as if the writ petition was dismissed. The respondent was also mandated to provide due notice before passing any final order. The issue of whether the original order was indeed illegal or without jurisdiction was not definitively decided, but the court exercised its discretion to allow a fresh adjudication.

Facts

The petitioner, Tvl Rasi Hardwares, represented by its Proprietor P. Ramakrishnan, filed a writ petition before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court challenging an order in FORM GST-DRC-07 dated 09.12.2025, passed by the Proper Officer/State Tax Officer, Madurai. This order confirmed a proposal in a Show Cause Notice dated 07.07.2025, as no reply was filed by the petitioner. The writ petition was filed on 31.08.2026, after the limitation period for filing an appeal under Section 107 of the respective 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 order dated 09.12.2025, passed in Form GST-DRC-07, is liable to be quashed on grounds of illegality, lack of jurisdiction, and violation of principles of natural justice, particularly when the statutory appeal period has expired? (Question of law and mixed fact and law, potentially touching upon principles of natural justice and procedural fairness). Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the impugned order should be quashed due to illegality, lack of jurisdiction, and violation of natural justice. They offered to pre-deposit 25% of the disputed tax as a condition for fresh adjudication, indicating a willingness to address the merits of the case. Respondent's contention: The respondent, represented by the Government Advocate (Taxes), did not explicitly record any arguments against the petitioner's prayer for de novo adjudication, but rather accepted notice and appeared before the court. The judgment notes the expiry of the appeal period, implying the respondent's position would likely be that the petitioner is out of time for a statutory remedy.