Tvl. Jeyabarathi Restaurant vs. The State Tax Officer

Held

The Court quashed the impugned order dated 24.12.2025. The case was remitted back to the Respondent for de novo 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 a copy of the order. Any prior payments made by the petitioner were to be adjusted towards this pre-deposit. The petitioner was also directed to file a reply to the Show Cause Notice dated 06.01.2025, along with supporting documents, treating the impugned order as an addendum to the Show Cause Notice. If these conditions were met, the Respondent was to pass a fresh order on merits and in accordance with law, preferably within three months of receiving the reply and pre-deposit. The Court also stipulated that if the petitioner failed to comply with any of the conditions, the Respondent would be at liberty to proceed with recovery as if the Writ Petition had been dismissed. The Respondent was also directed to provide due notice to the petitioner before passing any final order. The issue of whether the order was indeed illegal, without jurisdiction, or in violation of natural justice was not definitively decided, as the matter was remitted for fresh adjudication.

Facts

The petitioner, Tvl. Jeyabarathi Restaurant, represented by its Proprietor, V. Rajeswari, filed a Writ Petition challenging an order dated 24.12.2025 passed by the Respondent, the State Tax Officer, Tuticorin-1 Assessment Circle. The impugned order pertains to the tax period April 2021 to March 2022. The petitioner contended that the order was passed without jurisdiction and in violation of natural justice. The impugned order was preceded by a Show Cause Notice dated 06.01.2025, to which the petitioner claims not to have filed a reply and was not provided an opportunity to submit documents. The Writ Petition was filed on 17.08.2026, after the limitation period for filing an appeal under Section 107 of the respective GST enactments had expired.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order passed by the Respondent is liable to be quashed on the grounds of illegality, lack of jurisdiction, and violation of the principles of natural justice, particularly concerning the opportunity to file a reply and submit documents? (Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India). The Petitioner argued that the impugned order was passed without providing an adequate opportunity to submit a reply to the Show Cause Notice and to substantiate their case with documents, thus violating the principles of natural justice. The Petitioner also contended that the order was passed without jurisdiction. The Respondent, represented by the Government Advocate (Taxes), took notice of the petition. The judgment does not record specific arguments made by the Respondent against the petitioner's contentions, other than their appearance and notice of the petition.