Tvl Fathima Bricks vs. The State Tax Officer / The Commercial Tax Officer

Held

The Court quashed the impugned assessment order dated 20.11.2025 passed by the respondent. The matter was remitted back to the respondent for fresh adjudication. This decision was made subject to the petitioner depositing 25% of the disputed tax in cash through their Electronic Cash Ledger within thirty days of receiving the order. Additionally, the petitioner was directed to file a reply to the Show Cause Notice dated 13.05.2025, along with supporting documents, within the same period, treating the impugned order as an addendum to the SCN. If the petitioner complied, the respondent was to pass a final order on merits expeditiously, preferably within three months of receiving the reply and pre-deposit. The Court also stipulated that if the petitioner failed to comply, the respondent could proceed with recovery as if the writ petition was dismissed. The respondent was also directed to provide due notice before passing any further order. The issue of limitation for appeal was implicitly addressed by allowing the writ petition on condition of pre-deposit and re-adjudication.

Facts

The petitioner, Tvl Fathima Bricks, represented by its Proprietor Jesu Arockiamary, filed a writ petition challenging an assessment order dated 20.11.2025, issued by the respondent, the State Tax Officer/Commercial Tax Officer, Paramakudi Assessment Circle. This order was passed under Reference No. ZD331125349871E for the tax period 2020-21, following a Show Cause Notice (SCN) dated 13.05.2025. The petitioner had been called for a personal hearing but did not appear, leading to the impugned order. The writ petition was filed on 13.08.2026, after the limitation period for filing an appeal under Section 107 of the GST enactments had expired. The petitioner expressed willingness to pre-deposit 25% of the disputed tax.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Court should entertain a writ petition challenging an assessment order when the statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the GST enactments is available but the limitation period has expired? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that they are willing to pre-deposit 25% of the disputed tax liability as a condition for de novo adjudication, implying a request for the Court to condone the delay and allow the matter to be re-examined on merits. They relied on their endorsement to pay 25% of the tax liability. Respondent's contention: The respondent, represented by the learned Special Government Pleader, took notice of the writ petition. No specific argument was recorded for the respondent regarding the maintainability of the writ petition or the merits of the case, beyond their appearance and notice.