Tvl.Servo Life Sciences vs. The Assistant Commissioner(St)

Held

The Court quashed the impugned order dated 19.12.2025 passed by the Assistant Commissioner (ST). The case was remitted back to the first respondent for de novo adjudication. This decision was made subject to the petitioner depositing 15% of the disputed tax demand in cash from their Electronic Cash Register within thirty days of receiving a copy of the order, in addition to the 10% already deposited. Any prior payments were to be adjusted towards this pre-deposit. The petitioner was also directed to file a reply to the Show Cause Notice dated 30.09.2025, along with requisite documents, treating the impugned order as an addendum to the show cause notice. The first respondent was instructed to pass a final order on merits within three months of the petitioner's compliance. The Court held that if the petitioner failed to comply with these stipulations, the revenue was at liberty to proceed with recovery as if the writ petition had been dismissed. The reasoning for quashing the order was primarily to provide the petitioner with an opportunity to present their case, thereby upholding principles of natural justice, despite the delay in filing the writ petition.

Facts

The petitioner, Tvl.Servo Life Sciences, represented by its Proprietrix, challenged an order dated 19.12.2025 passed by the Assistant Commissioner (ST), Madurai, and a Form GST DRC-07. This order was preceded by a Show Cause Notice dated 30.09.2025. The petitioner contended that they did not file a reply to the show cause notice and were not provided an opportunity to submit supporting documents, leading to the impugned order. 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 offered to pre-deposit 15% of the disputed tax demand, in addition to 10% already deposited.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order passed by the first respondent is liable to be quashed for non-compliance with principles of natural justice, specifically for not providing an opportunity to the petitioner to file objections and submit supporting documents, as contemplated under the relevant GST provisions? 2. Whether the writ petition, filed beyond the statutory limitation period for appeal, is maintainable in light of the petitioner's willingness to pre-deposit a significant portion of the disputed tax demand? The petitioner argued that the impugned order was passed without affording them a proper opportunity to present their case, violating principles of natural justice. They relied on the fact that they had not filed a reply to the show cause notice due to lack of opportunity to submit documents. The revenue did not record any specific arguments against the petitioner's contentions regarding the procedural lapse. However, the judgment notes the expiry of the appeal period, implying a potential issue with the maintainability of the writ petition as an alternative remedy.