Tvl. P.A.C.A.R. Traders vs. The State Tax Officer

Held

The Court quashed the impugned order dated 30.01.2026 and remitted the case back to the respondent for de novo adjudication. This decision was based on the petitioner's willingness to pre-deposit 50% of the disputed tax in cash from their Electronic Cash Register within thirty days of receiving the order. The Court directed the petitioner to also file a reply to the Show Cause Notice dated 21.05.2024, along with supporting documents, treating the impugned order as an addendum to the notice. If these conditions were met, the respondent was to pass a fresh order on merits within three months of the reply and pre-deposit. The Court emphasized that the respondent must provide due notice to the petitioner before passing any fresh order. Failure by the petitioner to comply with these stipulations would allow the respondent to recover the tax as if the Writ Petition was dismissed in limine. No specific issue was left undecided, as the Court provided a clear path for re-adjudication.

Facts

The petitioner, Tvl. P.A.C.A.R. Traders, represented by its Proprietor, filed a Writ Petition challenging an order dated 30.01.2026 passed by the respondent, the State Tax Officer. This order was preceded by a Show Cause Notice dated 21.05.2024. The petitioner had an opportunity for a personal hearing but did not avail it, leading to the impugned order for the Financial Year 2019-20. The judgment notes that the limitation period for filing an appeal under Section 107 of the GST enactments had expired, and the Writ Petition was filed on 18.08.2026. This was the second round of litigation, with a previous order dated 10.08.2024 being challenged and remitted back by a common order dated 12.06.2025.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order dated 30.01.2026, passed by the respondent State Tax Officer for the Financial Year 2019-20, is liable to be quashed as illegal and in gross violation of the principles of natural justice, as contended by the petitioner? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the impugned order should be quashed due to violations of natural justice. While not explicitly stated, the implication is that the petitioner sought an opportunity to present their case. The petitioner also expressed willingness to pre-deposit 50% of the disputed tax as a condition for de novo adjudication. Respondent's Contention: The respondent, through the Special Government Pleader, noted that the petitioner had failed to respond to the Show Cause Notice and did not avail the opportunity for a personal hearing. The respondent also highlighted that the limitation period for filing an appeal under Section 107 had expired, and the Writ Petition was filed belatedly. The respondent did not explicitly argue against the quashing of the order but relied on the petitioner's procedural lapses.