S.Rajasekaran vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer-Ii

Held

The Court quashed the impugned order dated 02.12.2025 and remitted the case back to the respondent for fresh adjudication. The reasoning was based on the petitioner's willingness to pre-deposit 25% of the disputed tax and file a reply to the Show Cause Notice. The Court directed the petitioner to deposit 25% of the disputed tax in cash from their Electronic Cash Register within thirty days of receiving the order. Additionally, the petitioner must file a reply to the Show Cause Notice dated 01.09.2025, treating the impugned order as an addendum. If these conditions are met, the respondent shall pass a fresh order on merits within three months. The attachment of the petitioner's bank account will be automatically vacated upon compliance. The Court also clarified that the bank attachment would be lifted only if the 25% deposit is made and the petitioner has no other arrears. If the petitioner fails to comply, the respondent can proceed to recover the tax as if the writ petition was dismissed. The respondent must provide due notice before passing any further order. No issue was expressly left undecided.

Facts

The petitioner, S. Rajasekaran, filed a writ petition challenging an order in Form DRC-07 dated 02.12.2025, issued by the Deputy State Tax Officer-II, Lalgudi Assessment Circle. This order was preceded by a Show Cause Notice in Form DRC 01 dated 01.09.2025, to which the petitioner did not respond, nor did they appear for the personal hearing. Consequently, the impugned order was passed ex parte. The petitioner filed the writ petition on 18.08.2026, after the limitation period for filing an appeal under Section 107 of the GST enactments had expired. The petitioner offered to pre-deposit 25% of the disputed tax for a de novo adjudication.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order dated 02.12.2025, passed ex parte by the respondent, should be quashed, considering the petitioner's failure to respond to the Show Cause Notice and attend the personal hearing, and the expiry of the appeal period. Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the impugned order was passed ex parte due to their absence and that they are willing to pre-deposit 25% of the disputed tax for a fresh adjudication. They relied on the principle of natural justice and the court's power to grant relief in writ proceedings. Respondent's contention: The respondent, through the Government Advocate (Taxes), had no objection to the petitioner's proposal for pre-deposit and de novo adjudication.