M. Palanikumar vs. The Deputy Commissioner (Appeal)

Held

The Court found no reason to differ with the order of the learned Single Judge. The appellant was directed to deposit 10% of the disputed tax amount for each assessment year within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Upon such payment, the matter would be remitted back to the third respondent (Deputy Commissioner Tax Officer). The appellant would then be permitted to file detailed objections and a reply. The third respondent was directed to grant a personal hearing to the appellant and pass orders on merits. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided, as the core issue was procedural compliance for further adjudication.

Facts

The appellant, M. Palanikumar, filed three writ appeals challenging a common order of the learned Single Judge dated 20.02.2026. The writ petitions had challenged orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner Tax Officer, Madurai West, on 30.01.2026, concerning assessment years 2020-21, 2021-22, and 2022-23. The appellant's GST registration had been cancelled effective 01.09.2019. The impugned orders levied seigniorage fee and royalty for the subsequent years. The respondents contended that there was sufficient material to show the appellant was conducting business. The learned Single Judge had directed the appellant to deposit 10% of the disputed tax amount before raising objections.

Key Issues

1. Whether the levy of seigniorage fee and royalty for the assessment years 2020-21, 2021-22, and 2022-23 is sustainable, given that the appellant's GST registration was cancelled effective 01.09.2019? (Question of law and fact) Petitioner's Contention: The levy for the subsequent years is unsustainable because the GST registration had been cancelled. The proceedings uploaded on the portal were also questioned. Revenue's Contention: There were sufficient materials available with the respondent to demonstrate that the appellant was actually carrying on business, justifying the levy.