M/S. R. Muthukumar Contractor vs. The State Tax Officer

Held

The Court quashed the impugned order dated April 30, 2024, and remitted the case back to the first respondent (State Tax Officer) for fresh adjudication. This decision was made conditional upon the petitioner depositing 50% 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 December 27, 2023, along with supporting documents, treating the impugned order as an addendum. The first respondent was instructed to pass a final order on merits and in accordance with law, preferably within three months of the reply and pre-deposit. 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. The Court noted that the limitation for appeal had expired but granted relief based on the petitioner's willingness to pre-deposit and seek fresh adjudication.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. R. Muthukumar Contractor, filed a writ petition before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court challenging an order in Form GST DRC-07 dated April 30, 2024, passed by the State Tax Officer. This order confirmed the proposal in a Show Cause Notice dated December 27, 2023, for the tax period 2018-19, in the absence of a reply from the petitioner. The petitioner noted that the limitation period for filing an appeal under Section 107 of the GST enactments had expired, and the writ petition was filed on August 24, 2026. The petitioner expressed willingness to pre-deposit 50% of the disputed tax as a condition for fresh adjudication.

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 time-barred? 2. Whether the impugned order dated April 30, 2024, passed by the State Tax Officer, confirming the demand in the Show Cause Notice dated December 27, 2023, without considering a reply from the petitioner, is sustainable? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that they are willing to pre-deposit 50% of the disputed tax amount as a condition for de novo adjudication. The petitioner made an endorsement in the court bundle agreeing to this condition. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments from the revenue regarding the maintainability of the writ petition or the merits of the case, other than the fact that the limitation period for appeal had expired.