M/S. Eminent Textile Mills Private Limited vs. The Proper Officer / Assistant Commissioner (St)

Held

The Court quashed the impugned order dated 31.05.2024 and the rectification order dated 29.11.2024. The case was remitted back to the respondent for fresh adjudication, subject to the petitioner depositing 100% of the disputed tax in cash from their Electronic Cash Ledger within thirty days of receiving a copy of the order. The petitioner was also directed to file a reply to the Show Cause Notice dated 28.02.2024, along with supporting documents, within the same period, treating the impugned order as an addendum to the Show Cause Notice. The respondent was directed to pass a fresh order on merits and in accordance with law within three months of receiving the reply and pre-deposit, after giving due notice to the petitioner. Failure to comply with these stipulations would allow the respondent to recover the tax as if the Writ Petition was dismissed. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Eminent Textile Mills Private Limited, filed a Writ Petition challenging an order dated 31.05.2024 and a subsequent rectification order dated 29.11.2024, both issued by the Proper Officer/Assistant Commissioner (ST), Rajapalayam II Assessment Circle. These orders followed a Show Cause Notice dated 28.02.2024. The petitioner did not avail the opportunity for a personal hearing offered in response to the Show Cause Notice, leading to the impugned order dated 23.12.2025. The petitioner filed the present Writ Petition on 14.08.2026, after the period for filing an appeal under Section 107 of the GST enactments had expired. The petitioner expressed willingness to pre-deposit 100% of the disputed tax.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned orders, issued without the petitioner availing the opportunity for personal hearing and after the limitation period for appeal had expired, are liable to be quashed? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that they are willing to pre-deposit 100% of the disputed tax as a condition for fresh adjudication. They made an endorsement in the court bundle undertaking to pay 100% of the tax. Revenue's contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondent revenue authority. However, the respondent was represented and took notice of the petition.