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

Held

The Court quashed the impugned order dated June 30, 2025, and remitted the case back to the first respondent for fresh adjudication. This decision was made 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 March 13, 2025, along with supporting documents, within the same period, treating the impugned order as an addendum to the Show Cause Notice. The Court reasoned that this course of action would allow for a proper adjudication on merits. If the petitioner complied with these stipulations, the first respondent was to pass a final order expeditiously, preferably within three months of the reply and pre-deposit. Failure to comply would allow the respondents to recover the tax as if the Writ Petition was dismissed. The Court noted that the limitation for appeal had expired but proceeded to grant relief based on the petitioner's undertaking.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. R. Muthukumar Contractor, filed a Writ Petition before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court challenging an Assessment Order in Form GST DRC-07 dated June 30, 2025, issued by the Deputy State Tax Officer, Aranthangi Assessment Circle. This order confirmed the proposal made in a Show Cause Notice dated March 13, 2025, for the tax period 2021-22, in the absence of a reply from the petitioner. The petitioner filed the Writ Petition on August 24, 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 Court should entertain a Writ Petition when the statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the GST enactments is available but the limitation period has expired? 2. Whether the impugned order dated June 30, 2025, passed by the Deputy State Tax Officer, confirming the demand in the absence of a reply, is liable to be quashed and remitted for fresh adjudication? The petitioner argued that they were willing to pre-deposit 25% of the disputed tax as a condition for de novo adjudication, as evidenced by an endorsement made in the court bundle. The revenue (represented by the Deputy State Tax Officer) did not record any specific arguments against the petitioner's request for a fresh adjudication, given the petitioner's willingness to comply with pre-deposit conditions.