Tvl. Rajalakshmi Traders vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer -2 /

Held

The Court quashed the impugned Assessment Order dated 27.04.2024. The case was remitted back to the respondent for fresh adjudication. This decision was made subject to the petitioner depositing 50% of the disputed tax in cash from their Electronic Cash Register within thirty days of receiving the order. Additionally, the petitioner was directed to file a reply to the Show Cause Notice dated 25.12.2023, along with supporting documents, within the same period. The respondent was instructed to pass a final order on merits and in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible, 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 would be at liberty to recover the tax as if the Writ Petition was dismissed. The respondent was also directed to provide due notice to the petitioner before passing any final order.

Facts

The petitioner, Tvl. Rajalakshmi Traders, filed a Writ Petition before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court challenging an Assessment Order dated 27.04.2024, issued by the Deputy State Tax Officer-2. This order was preceded by a Show Cause Notice dated 25.12.2023, for the tax period 2018-19. The petitioner had not availed the opportunity for a personal hearing offered in the Show Cause Notice. The Writ Petition was filed on 17.08.2026, after the limitation period for filing an appeal under Section 107 of the GST enactments had expired. The petitioner expressed willingness to pre-deposit 50% of the disputed tax for de novo adjudication.

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 but barred by limitation? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that they are willing to pre-deposit 50% of the disputed tax as a condition for fresh adjudication, implying a request for the Court to condone the delay and allow the matter to be heard on merits. Revenue's contention: The respondent, represented by the Special Government Pleader, took notice of the petition. No specific arguments were recorded for the revenue regarding the maintainability of the writ petition or the merits of the case, beyond acknowledging the petitioner's undertaking.