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

Held

The Court quashed the impugned order in Form GST DRC-07 dated 24.09.2025. The case was remitted back to the first respondent (State Tax Officer) for passing 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 a copy of the order. The petitioner was also directed to file a reply to the Show Cause Notice dated 24.12.2024, along with supporting documents, treating the impugned order as an addendum to the Show Cause Notice. If the petitioner complied with these stipulations, the first respondent was to proceed with a fresh adjudication on merits and in accordance with law, preferably within three months of the reply and pre-deposit. The Court noted that if the petitioner failed to comply, the respondents were at liberty to recover the tax as if the writ petition was dismissed. The first respondent was also directed to provide due notice to the petitioner before passing any fresh order. The issue of limitation for appeal was implicitly addressed by allowing the writ petition on the condition of pre-deposit and fresh adjudication.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. R. Muthukumar Contractor, filed a writ petition challenging an order in Form GST DRC-07 dated 24.09.2025, passed by the State Tax Officer, Aranthangi Assessment Circle. This order confirmed the proposal in a Show Cause Notice dated 24.12.2024 for the tax period 2021-22, purportedly in the absence of a reply from the petitioner. 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 as a condition for fresh adjudication.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order in Form GST DRC-07 dated 24.09.2025, passed by the State Tax Officer, should be quashed and the matter remitted for fresh adjudication, considering the petitioner's willingness to pre-deposit 25% of the disputed tax and file a reply to the Show Cause Notice. 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 and to file a reply to the Show Cause Notice. They sought to quash the impugned order and direct the respondent to conduct fresh adjudication in accordance with law. Revenue's contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions from the revenue or State. However, the revenue's representative took notice of the writ petition.