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

Held

The Court quashed the impugned assessment order and the consequential attachment notice. The case was remitted back to the second respondent for a fresh order, 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 25.11.2024, along with supporting documents, within the same period, treating the impugned order as an addendum to the show cause notice. The second respondent was instructed to pass a final order on merits and in accordance with law within three months of the petitioner's compliance. The Court also stipulated that if the petitioner failed to comply with these conditions, the respondents would be at liberty to recover the tax as if the writ petition was dismissed in limine. The second respondent was further directed to provide due notice to the petitioner before passing any order. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.

Facts

The petitioner, Tvl.TCRP Constructions, filed a writ petition challenging an assessment order-in-original dated 13.02.2025 and a consequential attachment notice dated 04.08.2026. The assessment order, passed by the second respondent (State Tax Officer), confirmed the proposal in a show cause notice dated 25.11.2024, as no reply was filed by the petitioner. The first respondent (Deputy Commissioner) subsequently issued an attachment order. The petitioner filed the writ petition 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, especially when the limitation period has expired? 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, indicating a willingness to comply with the demand to some extent. They sought to have the assessment order and attachment notice quashed and the matter remitted back for fresh adjudication. Respondents' contention: The respondents, represented by the Government Advocate (Taxes), did not explicitly record arguments against entertaining the writ petition or against the petitioner's offer to pre-deposit. They took notice of the petition and appeared before the Court.