Tvl. Veenus Promoters vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer - 1

Held

The Court quashed the impugned order dated 29.12.2025 and remitted the case back to the respondent for de novo 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 the order. Any amount already paid would be adjusted towards this pre-deposit. The petitioner was also directed to file a reply to the Show Cause Notice dated 14.10.2025, along with requisite documents, within the same period, treating the impugned order as an addendum to the Show Cause Notice. The respondent was instructed to pass a fresh order on merits and in accordance with law expeditiously, preferably within three months of the petitioner's compliance. The Court also stipulated that if the petitioner failed to comply with these conditions, the respondent could proceed to recover the tax as if the writ petition had been dismissed. The respondent was also directed to provide due notice to the petitioner before passing any order. The ratio decidendi is that procedural fairness and an opportunity to be heard are fundamental, and in cases of non-compliance, a conditional remand with pre-deposit can be granted to ensure justice.

Facts

The petitioner, Tvl. VEENUS PROMOTERS, challenged an order dated 29.12.2025 passed by the Deputy State Tax Officer - 1, Theni, under Section 73 of the TNGST Act, 2017, for the assessment year 2021-22. The impugned order was issued after a Show Cause Notice dated 14.10.2025. The petitioner contended that they did not file a reply to the Show Cause Notice and were not given 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 over 25% of the disputed tax had already been recovered and expressed willingness to pre-deposit 25% of the disputed tax.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order dated 29.12.2025, passed by the respondent under Section 73 of the TNGST Act, 2017, is liable to be quashed as cryptic, non-speaking, illegal, arbitrary, and without jurisdiction, given the petitioner's claim of not being provided an opportunity to submit documents and file a reply to the Show Cause Notice. Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the impugned order was passed without providing them an opportunity to submit their reply and substantiating documents 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 25% of the disputed tax for de novo adjudication. Revenue's Arguments: The respondent, represented by the Government Advocate (Taxes), took notice of the petition. No specific arguments were recorded for the respondent in the judgment.