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 adjudication. This decision was made subject to the petitioner depositing 50% of the disputed tax in cash from their Electronic Cash Register within thirty days of receiving the order. Additionally, the petitioner was directed to file a reply to the Show Cause Notice dated 29.04.2024, along with supporting documents, treating the assessment order dated 28.08.2024 as an addendum to the show cause notice. If the petitioner complied with these stipulations, the second respondent was to pass a final order on merits within three months of the reply and pre-deposit. The Court also stipulated that if the petitioner failed to comply, the respondents could proceed to recover the tax as if the writ petition was dismissed. The second respondent was also directed to provide due notice to the petitioner before passing any order. The issue of limitation for appeal was implicitly bypassed due to the petitioner's willingness to pre-deposit and the court's direction for de novo adjudication.

Facts

The petitioner, Tvl.TCRP Constructions, represented by its partner, filed a writ petition challenging an assessment order in Form DRC-07 dated 28.08.2024, passed by the second respondent (State Tax Officer-02). This order confirmed a proposal in a Show Cause Notice (DRC 01) dated 29.04.2024, issued in the absence of a reply from the petitioner. Subsequently, the first respondent (Deputy Commissioner (ST)) issued an attachment notice in Form GST DRC 16 dated 04.08.2026. 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 50% of the disputed tax.

Key Issues

1. Whether the assessment order and consequential attachment notice are illegal, devoid of merits, and in violation of principles of natural justice, given that the writ petition was filed after the expiry of the appeal period under Section 107 of the GST enactments? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that they are willing to pre-deposit 50% of the disputed tax as a condition for de novo adjudication, indicating a willingness to address the merits of the demand. The petitioner made an endorsement agreeing to pay 50% of the demand. Respondents' contention: The respondents, through the Government Advocate (Taxes), took notice of the petition. The judgment does not explicitly record any specific arguments made by the respondents against the petitioner's request for de novo adjudication or their willingness to pre-deposit the tax. However, their presence and acceptance of notice imply their position as the revenue.