Tvl. Simple Medical Solutions Private Limited. vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer - 1

Held

The Court quashed the impugned order dated 17.12.2025 and remitted the case back to the respondent for fresh adjudication. This decision was made subject to the petitioner depositing 25% of the disputed tax in cash from their Electronic Cash Ledger within thirty days of receiving a copy of the order, with any amount already paid to be adjusted. The petitioner was also directed to file a reply to the Show Cause Notice dated 28.07.2025, along with supporting documents, treating the impugned order as an addendum to the show cause notice. The respondent was directed to pass a final order on merits within three months of the petitioner's compliance. The attachment of the petitioner's bank account was to be lifted upon compliance with the pre-deposit condition and if no other arrears were outstanding. The Court made it clear that if the petitioner failed to comply, the respondent could proceed to recover the tax as if the writ petition had been dismissed. The ratio decidendi is that procedural fairness and an opportunity to be heard are fundamental, and where these are lacking, even after the limitation period for appeal has expired, a High Court may intervene through a writ of certiorari and mandamus, especially when the petitioner demonstrates willingness to comply with certain conditions.

Facts

The petitioner, Tvl. SIMPLE MEDICAL SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 17.12.2025 passed by the Deputy State Tax Officer - 1, Pattukkottai. This order was issued under Section 73 of the TNGST Act, 2017, for the assessment year 2021-22. The impugned order was preceded by a Show Cause Notice dated 28.07.2025. The petitioner contended that they did not file a reply to the show cause notice and were not provided an opportunity to submit documents. The writ petition was filed on 19.08.2026, after the limitation period for filing an appeal under Section 107 of the GST enactments had expired. The petitioner stated that 42% of the disputed tax had already been recovered and offered to pre-deposit 25% of the disputed tax.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order dated 17.12.2025, passed under Section 73 of the TNGST Act, 2017, is liable to be quashed for being cryptic, non-speaking, illegal, arbitrary, and without jurisdiction, due to the alleged lack of opportunity for the petitioner to file a reply and submit documents? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the impugned order is unsustainable as they were not afforded a proper opportunity to present their case and submit supporting documents in response to the Show Cause Notice. They also highlighted that a significant portion of the disputed tax had already been recovered and expressed willingness to pre-deposit a further 25% of the disputed tax for de novo adjudication. Revenue's contention: The respondent, represented by the Special Government Pleader, took notice of the writ petition. No specific arguments were recorded from the respondent's side regarding the merits of the petitioner's claims or the validity of the impugned order.