Tvl. Sahul Hameed vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)

Held

The Court quashed the impugned order dated 10.03.2026 and remitted the case back to the respondent for fresh adjudication. This decision was based on the petitioner's undertaking to deposit 25% of the disputed tax in cash from their Electronic Cash Register within thirty days of receiving the order. The petitioner was also directed to file a reply to the Show Cause Notice dated 29.12.2025, along with supporting documents, treating the impugned order as an addendum. The respondent was instructed to pass a fresh order on merits after receiving the reply and pre-deposit, preferably within three months. The Court stipulated that if the petitioner failed to comply with these conditions, the respondent could proceed with recovery as if the Writ Petition was dismissed. The respondent was also directed to provide due notice to the petitioner before passing any final order. The issue of whether the Writ Petition should be entertained despite the expired appeal period was implicitly addressed by the Court's decision to grant relief based on the petitioner's compliance.

Facts

The petitioner, Tvl. Sahul Hameed, a works contractor, filed a Writ Petition challenging an order dated 10.03.2026 issued by the Assistant Commissioner (ST), Aruppukottai. This order was preceded by a Show Cause Notice dated 29.12.2025, to which the petitioner did not respond or appear for a personal hearing. The petitioner filed the present Writ Petition on 19.08.2026, after the limitation period for filing an appeal under Section 107 of the GST enactments had expired. The petitioner expressed willingness to pre-deposit 25% of the disputed tax.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Court should entertain a Writ Petition when the statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the GST enactments is available, despite the limitation period having expired? The petitioner argued that they are willing to pre-deposit 25% of the disputed tax as a condition for de novo adjudication, implying a request for the Court to condone the delay and allow the matter to be heard on merits. The respondent, represented by the Government Advocate (Taxes), did not present any specific arguments against entertaining the petition, having accepted notice and consented to final hearing at the admission stage.