Manokaran Muthukrishnan Kiruthika vs. Deputy Commercial Tax Officer/Deputy State Tax Officer

Facts

The petitioner, Manokaran Muthukrishnan Kiruthika, proprietor of M/s. Shivam Water Supply, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 23.12.2025, passed by the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer/Deputy State Tax Officer, Srirangam Assessment Circle. This order was issued under Section 73 of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017/Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, for the financial year 2021-22. The impugned order followed a show cause notice dated 24.09.2025, and subsequent reminders on 31.10.2025, 11.11.2025, and 19.11.2025. The petitioner failed to file a reply or appear for personal hearings, leading to the ex-parte order. The petitioner sought to quash this order.

Held

The Court quashed the impugned order dated 23.12.2025 and remitted the case back to the respondent for de novo adjudication. This decision was based on the petitioner's undertaking to pre-deposit 25% of the disputed tax in cash from their electronic cash register within thirty days of receiving the order. The petitioner was also directed to file a reply to the show cause notice dated 24.09.2025, along with supporting documents, within the same period, treating the impugned order as an addendum to the show cause notice. If these conditions were met, the respondent was to pass a fresh order on merits expeditiously, preferably within three months of the reply and pre-deposit. The attachment of the petitioner's bank account, if any, would stand vacated upon compliance. The Court clarified that if the petitioner failed to comply with any stipulation, the respondent could proceed to recover the tax as if the writ petition was dismissed. The respondent was also directed to issue due notice before passing any further order. The ratio decidendi is that procedural lapses by the assessee, if rectified by a substantial pre-deposit and a commitment to participate in the adjudication process, can warrant a remand for a fresh adjudication on merits.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order passed under Section 73 of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017/Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, is liable to be quashed due to the petitioner's failure to respond to the show cause notice and attend personal hearings? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner, while acknowledging the failure to respond, expressed willingness to pre-deposit 25% of the disputed tax as a condition for de novo adjudication. The petitioner made an endorsement in the court bundle undertaking to deposit 25% of the tax. Respondent's contention: The respondent, represented by the learned Government Advocate (Tax), did not explicitly argue against the petitioner's request for de novo adjudication, having consented to the disposal of the writ petition at the admission stage.