Tvl.Tcrp Constructions vs. The Deputy Commissioner (St)

Held

The Court quashed the impugned assessment order and attachment notice. The case was remitted back to the second respondent for de novo adjudication. This decision was made conditional upon the petitioner depositing 25% of the disputed tax in cash from their Electronic Cash Register within thirty days of receiving a copy of the order. The petitioner was also directed to file a reply to the show cause notice dated 27.05.2025, along with supporting documents, treating the impugned order as an addendum. The second respondent is to pass a fresh order on merits within three months of the petitioner's compliance. If the petitioner fails to comply, the respondents are at liberty to recover the tax as if the writ petition was dismissed. The Court noted that the second respondent must provide due notice before passing any further order. The issue of the expired appeal period was implicitly addressed by the Court's decision to allow de novo adjudication upon pre-deposit.

Facts

The petitioner, Tvl.TCRP Constructions, filed a writ petition challenging an assessment order-in-original dated 30.08.2025 (Form DRC-07) passed by the second respondent, the State Tax Officer, and a consequential attachment notice dated 04.08.2026 (Form GST DRC-16) issued by the first respondent, the Deputy Commissioner (ST). The assessment order confirmed a proposal in a show cause notice dated 27.05.2025, as no reply was filed by the petitioner. The writ petition was filed on 24.08.2026, 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 Court should entertain a writ petition when the statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the GST enactments is available but has expired, and the petitioner seeks to challenge an assessment order and consequential attachment notice? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner, facing an assessment order and attachment notice, sought relief from the High Court. The petitioner agreed to pre-deposit 25% of the disputed tax demand as a condition for de novo adjudication, indicating a willingness to comply with financial obligations to resolve the matter. Respondents' contention: The respondents, represented by the Government Advocate (Taxes), did not explicitly argue against the maintainability of the writ petition on the grounds of alternative remedy. Their primary role was to respond to the petitioner's submissions and the Court's directions.