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 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 expeditiously, preferably within three months of the reply and pre-deposit. The attachment of the bank account would stand automatically vacated upon compliance. The Court clarified that if the petitioner failed to comply with any stipulation, the respondents were at liberty to proceed for recovery as if the writ petition was dismissed. The second respondent was also directed to give due notice before passing any order. The issue of whether the Court should entertain a writ petition when the appeal period has expired was implicitly addressed by the Court's decision to grant relief subject to conditions, effectively bypassing the strict limitation period in this instance.

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 2023-24. This order followed a Show Cause Notice dated 04.07.2025. The petitioner had not availed the personal hearing offered in the show cause notice. The writ petition was filed on 18.08.2026, after the limitation period for filing an appeal under Section 107 of the GST enactments had expired. The petitioner sought to quash the impugned order, remand the matter for fresh consideration, permit filing of a detailed reply with supporting documents, grant a personal hearing, and direct the respondents to unfreeze their bank account.

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? 2. Whether the petitioner should be granted an opportunity for de novo adjudication despite the expiry of the appeal period, subject to certain conditions? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner sought to quash the impugned order and prayed for a remand to the second respondent for fresh consideration. They were willing to pre-deposit 10% of the disputed tax as a condition for de novo adjudication and requested the defreezing of their bank account. The petitioner's counsel made an endorsement to deposit 10% within 30 days of receiving the order copy. Revenue's arguments: The judgment records no specific arguments from the respondents. However, the respondents were represented by a Government Advocate (Taxes) who took notice of the petition.