M/S.Sri Vaira Balaji Fire Works vs. The Commissioner Of Commercial Tax

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Sri Vaira Balaji Fireworks, represented by its Partner V.Raja, filed a writ petition before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court challenging an order in Form DRC-07 dated April 21, 2026, passed by the Assistant Commissioner (ST), Sivakasi III Circle. The impugned order pertains to the tax period 2024-25. The petitioner sought to quash the order and requested the court to direct the respondent to re-consider the case regarding the clubbing of amounts available in individual persons' accounts, following previous court orders and government instructions, after providing an opportunity for a personal hearing. The court noted that similar matters for assessment years 2020-21 and 2023-24 had been previously decided.

Held

The Court quashed the impugned order dated April 21, 2026, and remitted the matter back to the third respondent (Assistant Commissioner (ST)) for passing a fresh order. This decision was based on the identical facts presented in the current writ petition compared to previous ones that came before the court. The remission was made subject to the condition that the petitioner deposits 10% of the disputed tax in cash from their Electronic Cash Register within thirty days of receiving the order. The court reasoned that this condition mirrored the pre-deposit requirement under Section 107 of the respective GST Enactments for filing an appeal. If the petitioner complied with this stipulation, the third respondent was directed to pass a final order on merits and in accordance with law expeditiously, preferably within three months of the pre-deposit. The attachment of the petitioner's bank account was ordered to be automatically vacated upon compliance with the deposit condition, provided the petitioner was not in arrears for any other tax period. The court explicitly stated that the bank attachment would be lifted subject to the 10% deposit and the absence of other arrears.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order dated April 21, 2026, passed by the Assistant Commissioner (ST) is illegal, unjust, unfair, and in excess of jurisdiction, violating principles of natural justice? 2. Whether the case should be re-considered with regard to the clubbing of amounts available in individual persons' accounts in accordance with law and previous court orders? The petitioner argued that the impugned order was passed in violation of principles of natural justice and sought a re-consideration of the clubbing of amounts. The respondents, represented by the Government Advocate (Tax), did not record any specific arguments in the judgment, but their presence indicated their opposition or defense against the petitioner's claims. The court's decision was heavily influenced by previous orders passed in similar writ petitions concerning the same petitioner or identical issues.