Vaasan Medical Centre (INDIA) Private Limited vs. The State Tax Officer (St)

Held

The Court quashed the impugned ex-parte order dated 02.04.2026. The primary reasoning was based on the petitioner's undertaking to pre-deposit 10% of the disputed tax in cash from their Electronic Cash Register within thirty days of receiving the order. The Court also directed the petitioner to file a reply to the Show Cause Notice dated 04.09.2025, along with supporting documents, within the same period, treating the impugned order as an addendum to the show cause notice. The case was remitted back to the first respondent for a fresh adjudication. The Court stipulated that if the petitioner complied with these conditions, the first respondent should pass a final order on merits expeditiously, preferably within three months of the petitioner's reply and pre-deposit. If the petitioner failed to comply, the respondents were at liberty to recover the tax as if the writ petition was dismissed. The Court also noted that the statutory appeal period had expired.

Facts

The petitioner, Vaasan Medical Centre (India) Pvt. Ltd., filed a writ petition before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court challenging an ex-parte order in Form GST DRC-07 dated 02.04.2026, passed by the first respondent, the State Tax Officer, for the tax period 2024-25. This order was issued following a Show Cause Notice dated 04.09.2025, which also called for a personal hearing. The petitioner did not avail the opportunity for a personal hearing, leading to the impugned order. 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 expressed willingness to pre-deposit 10% of the disputed tax.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned ex-parte order, passed without affording the petitioner a proper opportunity for hearing, is violative of the principles of natural justice, particularly in light of the petitioner's failure to attend the scheduled personal hearing? 2. Whether the Court should grant relief by quashing the impugned order and remitting the matter for de novo adjudication, considering the petitioner's willingness to pre-deposit a portion of the disputed tax and the expiry of the statutory appeal period? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the impugned order was violative of the principles of natural justice. They offered to pre-deposit 10% of the disputed tax as a condition for fresh adjudication. Revenue's arguments: The respondents, represented by the Special Government Pleader, took notice of the writ petition. No specific arguments were recorded for the respondents regarding the merits of the case or the petitioner's failure to appear for the hearing.