Tvl Ancheril Agencies vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)- 2
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Tvl Ancheril Agencies, filed a writ petition challenging an assessment order dated 19.11.2025 passed by the Assistant Commissioner (ST)-2 and a consequential recovery notice dated 16.07.2026 issued by the Deputy Commissioner (ST). The assessment order was preceded by a Show Cause Notice dated 10.09.2025, to which the petitioner did not respond, leading to the impugned order. The petitioner filed the writ petition on 05.08.2026, 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.
Held
The Court quashed the impugned assessment order dated 19.11.2025 and the consequential recovery proceedings. The case was remitted back to the first respondent for de novo adjudication. This decision was made conditional upon the petitioner depositing 25% 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 10.09.2025, along with supporting documents, treating the impugned order as an addendum to the show cause notice. The Court reasoned that by agreeing to pre-deposit 25% of the disputed tax, the petitioner demonstrated a willingness to pursue the matter substantively. If the petitioner complied with these stipulations, the first respondent was to pass a fresh order on merits within three months. The attachment of the petitioner's bank account was to be automatically vacated upon compliance. The Court made it clear that if the petitioner failed to comply, the respondents could proceed with recovery as if the writ petition was dismissed. No issue was expressly left undecided.
Key Issues
1. Whether the impugned assessment order and consequential recovery proceedings are liable to be quashed for violating principles of natural justice, judicial discipline, and being arbitrary and perverse, as contended by the petitioner? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to an opportunity for de novo adjudication despite the expiry of the appeal period, given their willingness to pre-deposit 25% of the disputed tax? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the impugned order and recovery notice were in gross violation of the principles of natural justice, judicial discipline, and were arbitrary and perverse, violating Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. They also offered to pre-deposit 25% of the disputed tax for a fresh adjudication. Revenue's arguments: The judgment records no specific arguments from the respondents (revenue). However, it notes that the limitation period for filing an appeal had expired, and the writ petition was filed late.
Sections Cited
Section 107
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Before: and
Mr.R.Parthiban, learned Special Government Pleader, takes notice for the respondents.
This Writ Petition is taken up for final hearing at the time of admission with the consent of the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents.
In this Writ Petition, the petitioner has challenged the impugned Assessment Order dated 19.11.2025 bearing reference in GSTIN No. 33AABFA9374Q1ZY/2021-2022 of the first respondent along with the consequential recovery proceedings dated 16.07.2026 of the second respondent, 2/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis which was preceded by a Show Cause Notice in DRC 01 dated 10.09.2025, wherein the petitioner was also called upon to appear for personal hearing. However, the petitioner had not taken advantage of the same and thus, suffered the Impugned Order dated 19.11.2025. 4. It is noticed that the limitation for filing an appeal under Section 107 of the respective GST enactments, 2017 against the Impugned Order has already expired. The present Writ Petition has been filed only on 05.08.2026. 5. At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is willing to pre-deposit 25% of the disputed tax as a condition for de novo adjudication.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has also made an endorsement to that effect in the Court Bundle, which is extracted hereunder:-
“Agree to pay 25% of the tax.”
In view of the above, the impugned order is quashed and the case is remitted back to the first respondent to pass a fresh order subject to the petitioner 3/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis depositing 25% of the disputed tax in cash from the petitioner's Electronic Cash Register within a period of thirty (30) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Within such time, the petitioner shall also file a reply to the Show Cause Notice in GST DRC 01 dated 10.09.2025 together with requisite documents to substantiate the case by treating the Impugned Order dated 19.11.2025 as an addendum to the Show Cause Notice dated 10.09.2025. 9. In case the petitioner complies with the above stipulations, the first respondent shall proceed to pass a final order on merits and in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of three (3) months of such reply / pre-deposit. Subject to the petitioner complying with the above stipulations, the attachment of the bank account of the petitioner shall also stand automatically vacated.
It is made clear that bank attachment shall be lifted subject to the deposit of 25% of the disputed tax as ordered above and the petitioner not being 4/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis in arrears of any other amount for any other tax period barring the amount demanded under the impugned Order.
In case the petitioner fails to comply with any of the stipulations, the respondents are at liberty to proceed against the petitioner to recover the tax in accordance with law as if this Writ Petition was dismissed in limine today.
Needless to state, before passing any such order, the first respondent shall give due notice to the petitioner.
This Writ Petition stands disposed of, with the above observations. No costs. Consequently, connected Writ Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. Index : Yes / No 10.08.2026 Internet : Yes / No apd To 1. The Assistant Commissioner (ST)- 2, Office of the Assistant Commissioner (State Tax)-2, Tuticorin-628 001. 5/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.SARAVANAN, J.
apd
The Deputy Commissioner (ST), Office of the Deputy Commissioner (ST) 282 A, North Beach Road, Tuticorin 628 001. 10.08.2026 6/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Reproduced from the public record of the Madras High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.