M.Balaji, M/S.Balaji Rough Stone Quarry vs. The State Tax Officer Cum Commercial Tax Officer

Held

The Court quashed the impugned order dated 27.02.2026. The case was remitted back to the respondent for passing a fresh order. This was subject to the petitioner depositing 20% of the disputed tax in cash from his Electronic Cash Register within thirty days of receiving the order. Any payments already made would be adjusted towards this pre-deposit. The petitioner was also directed to file a reply to the Show Cause Notice dated 11.09.2025, along with supporting documents, within the same period, treating the impugned order as an addendum to the show cause notice. If these conditions were met, the respondent was to pass a final order on merits expeditiously, preferably within three months of the reply and pre-deposit. The attachment of the petitioner's bank account would be lifted upon compliance. The Court clarified that bank attachment would be lifted only if the 20% pre-deposit was made and the petitioner had no other arrears. If the petitioner failed to comply, the respondent could proceed to recover the tax as if the writ petition was dismissed. The respondent was also directed to provide due notice before passing any further order.

Facts

The petitioner, M. Balaji of M/s. Balaji Rough Stone Quarry, filed a Writ Petition challenging an order dated 27.02.2026 passed by the State Tax Officer cum Commercial Tax Officer, Nilakottai Assessment Circle. This order was preceded by a Show Cause Notice dated 11.09.2025. The petitioner contended that he did not file a reply to the show cause notice and was not given an opportunity to submit documents. The Writ Petition was filed on 12.08.2026, after the limitation period for filing an appeal under Section 107 of the GST enactments had expired. The petitioner expressed willingness to pre-deposit 20% of the disputed tax demand for de novo adjudication.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order dated 27.02.2026, passed by the Respondent, is liable to be quashed as illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction, and against the principles of natural justice, particularly in light of the petitioner not being provided an opportunity to submit documents and not filing a reply to the Show Cause Notice dated 11.09.2025? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the impugned order was passed without affording him an opportunity to submit documents and file a reply to the Show Cause Notice, thus violating principles of natural justice. The petitioner also agreed to pre-deposit 20% of the disputed tax demand as a condition for fresh adjudication. Respondent's Contention: The judgment records no specific argument from the respondent. However, the respondent's counsel took notice of the petition.