Tvl. Muthamil Selvi Bharath Gas Gramin Vithrak vs. The Deputy Commissioner (CT)

Held

The Court quashed the impugned order dated 25.03.2026 and remitted the case back to the second respondent for a fresh order. This decision was made conditional upon the petitioner depositing 10% of the disputed tax in cash from their Electronic Cash Register 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 04.07.2025, along with requisite documents, treating the impugned order as an addendum to the show cause notice. If these stipulations were complied with, the second respondent was to pass a final order on merits within three months of the reply and pre-deposit. The attachment of the petitioner's bank account was to be automatically vacated upon compliance. The Court clarified that if the petitioner failed to comply with any stipulation, the respondents were at liberty to proceed as if the writ petition was dismissed. The second respondent was also directed to provide due notice to the petitioner before passing any order. The issue of the expired appeal period was implicitly addressed by the Court's willingness to grant relief subject to conditions.

Facts

The petitioner, Tvl. Muthamil Selvi Bharath Gas Gramin Vithrak, represented by its Proprietor Kottaisamy Chelladurai, filed a writ petition before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court. The petitioner challenged an Assessment Order in Form GST DRC 07 dated 25.03.2026, issued by the second respondent, the State Tax Officer, for the tax period 2024-25. This order was preceded by a Show Cause Notice (DRC 01) dated 04.07.2025. The petitioner contended that they had not taken advantage of the personal hearing offered in the show cause notice and consequently suffered the impugned order. The appeal period under Section 107 of the respective GST enactments had expired by the time the writ petition was filed on 18.08.2026. The petitioner also sought the defreezing of their bank account.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Court should entertain a writ petition when the statutory period for filing an appeal under Section 107 of the GST enactments has expired, and if so, under what conditions? 2. Whether the petitioner should be granted an opportunity for de novo adjudication despite the expiry of the appeal period, considering the circumstances presented? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that they were willing to pre-deposit 10% of the disputed tax as a condition for de novo adjudication. They sought to quash the impugned order and remand the matter for fresh consideration, allowing them to file a detailed reply with supporting documents and to be afforded a personal hearing. They also sought the immediate defreezing of their bank account. Revenue's Arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondents (The Deputy Commissioner (CT), GST - Appeals, and The State Tax Officer). However, the Court's order implies that the respondents were represented and took notice of the proceedings.