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

Held

The Court quashed the impugned assessment order (Form DRC-07 dated 11.12.2025) and the consequential recovery order (Form GST DRC-16 dated 04.08.2026). The case was remitted back to the second respondent for fresh 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 the order. Additionally, the petitioner must file a reply to the Show Cause Notice dated 29.07.2025, along with supporting documents, treating the assessment order as an addendum to the Show Cause Notice. The second respondent is directed to pass a final order on merits within three months of the petitioner's compliance. If the petitioner fails to comply with these stipulations, the respondents are at liberty to proceed with recovery as if the writ petition was dismissed. The Court also noted that the second respondent must provide due notice to the petitioner before passing any further order. The issue of whether the original assessment order was legally valid in the first instance was implicitly set aside by the order for de novo adjudication.

Facts

The petitioner, Tvl.TCRP Constructions, filed a writ petition challenging an assessment order in Form DRC-07 dated 11.12.2025, passed by the second respondent (State Tax Officer), which confirmed a proposal in a Show Cause Notice dated 29.07.2025 for non-receipt of a reply. Subsequently, the first respondent (Deputy Commissioner) issued a recovery order 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 25% of the disputed tax demand.

Key Issues

1. Whether the assessment order and consequential recovery proceedings are illegal and in violation of the principles of natural justice, given that the petitioner did not file a reply to the Show Cause Notice and the appeal period has expired? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that they are willing to pre-deposit 25% of the disputed tax demand as a condition for de novo adjudication, implying a request for the assessment order to be set aside and a fresh opportunity to be heard. They made an endorsement in the court bundle agreeing to pay 25% of the demand. Respondents' contention: The respondents, represented by the Government Advocate (Taxes), did not record any specific arguments against the petitioner's request for de novo adjudication, but rather appeared to consent to the Court's proposed course of action.