M/S.Hotel Bilal vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer Ii

Held

The Court quashed the impugned Assessment Order-in-Original dated 22.12.2025 and the consequential summary of the order in FORM GST DRC-07. The case was remitted back to the respondent for de novo adjudication. This decision was based on the petitioner's undertaking to pre-deposit 25% of the disputed tax in cash from their Electronic Cash Register within thirty days of receiving a copy of the order. The Court directed the petitioner to also file a reply to the Show Cause Notice dated 29.09.2025, along with supporting documents, treating the impugned order as an addendum to the show cause notice. The respondent was instructed to pass a fresh order on merits and in accordance with law expeditiously, preferably within three months of the petitioner's compliance. The Court also stipulated that if the petitioner failed to comply with these conditions, the respondent was at liberty to proceed with recovery as if the Writ Petition was dismissed. The respondent was also obligated to provide due notice to the petitioner before passing any fresh order. No issue was expressly left undecided.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Hotel Bilal, represented by its Proprietor Mohamed Abdulla, filed a Writ Petition before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court challenging an Assessment Order-in-Original dated 22.12.2025, issued by the Deputy State Tax Officer-II, Kumbakonam (Rural) Circle. This order, bearing reference GSTIN 33AZZPM2194F1ZX for the tax period 2021-22, was passed under Section 73 of the respective GST enactments and confirmed a Show Cause Notice (DRC 01 dated 29.09.2025) in the absence of a reply from the petitioner. The petitioner filed the Writ Petition on 31.08.2026, 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.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned Assessment Order-in-Original dated 22.12.2025, passed by the Deputy State Tax Officer-II, is without jurisdiction and in clear violation of statutory provisions, warranting quashing under Article 226 of the Constitution of India? The petitioner argued that the order was passed without jurisdiction and in violation of statutory provisions. The petitioner also contended that they were willing to pre-deposit 25% of the disputed tax as a condition for de novo adjudication. The respondent, represented by the Special Government Pleader, did not record any specific arguments against the petitioner's plea for a fresh adjudication, having accepted notice and appeared for final hearing at the admission stage.