Tvl. Muthamil Selvi Bharath Gas Gramin Vithrak vs. The Deputy Commissioner (CT), GST - Appeals

Held

The Court quashed the impugned order and remitted the case back to the second respondent for fresh consideration. This decision was made subject to the petitioner depositing 10% of the disputed tax in cash from their Electronic Cash Register within thirty days of receiving the order copy. 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 conditions were met, 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 could proceed to recover the tax as if the writ petition was dismissed. The second respondent was also directed to provide due notice before passing any further order.

Facts

The petitioner, Tvl. Muthamil Selvi Bharath Gas Gramin Vithrak, represented by its Proprietor Kottaisamy Chelladurai, filed a writ petition challenging 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 2022-23. This order was preceded by a Show Cause Notice dated 04.07.2025. The petitioner had not availed the opportunity for a personal hearing offered in the show cause notice, leading to 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 sought to quash the order, remand the matter for fresh consideration, and have their bank account defrozen.

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 the limitation period has expired? 2. Whether the petitioner should be granted an opportunity for de novo adjudication despite the expiry of the appeal period and failure to attend the personal hearing? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner contended that they were willing to pre-deposit 10% of the disputed tax as a condition for fresh adjudication. They sought to file a detailed reply to the show cause notice along with supporting documents and be granted a personal hearing. They also prayed for the defreezing of their bank account. Revenue's Arguments: The judgment records no specific arguments from the respondents. However, the respondents were represented by the Government Advocate (Taxes).