Ms Sri Durga Stores vs. The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer-2
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Ms Sri Durga Stores, represented by its Proprietor, M. Sakthivel, filed a Writ Petition challenging an order dated 20.05.2025 issued by the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer-2, Virudhunagar. This order was preceded by a Show Cause Notice dated 27.02.2025. The petitioner contended that they did not file a reply to the show cause notice and were not provided an opportunity to submit documents, leading to the impugned order. The petitioner also noted that 96% of the disputed tax had already been recovered by the respondent. The Writ Petition was filed on 28.07.2026, after the limitation period for filing an appeal under Section 107 of the GST enactments had expired.
Held
The Court quashed the impugned order dated 20.05.2025 and remitted the case back to the respondent for a fresh adjudication. This decision was based on the petitioner's undertaking to deposit 25% of the disputed tax in cash from their Electronic Cash Register within thirty days of receiving the order, with any previously paid amounts to be adjusted. The Court directed that any excess deposit would be adjusted towards confirmed tax liability or future liability. The petitioner was also required to file a reply to the Show Cause Notice dated 27.02.2025 along with supporting documents, treating the impugned order as an addendum. Upon compliance, the respondent was to pass a final order on merits expeditiously, preferably within three months. The attachment of the petitioner's bank account, if any, was to be lifted automatically upon compliance, provided the petitioner was not in arrears for other tax periods. The respondent was also directed to provide due notice to the petitioner before passing any fresh order. The Court expressly left undecided the merits of the tax demand itself.
Key Issues
1. Whether the impugned order dated 20.05.2025, issued by the respondent, is without jurisdiction and in clear violation of statutory provisions, warranting quashing under Article 226 of the Constitution of India? The petitioner argued that the order was passed without providing an adequate opportunity to be heard and to submit supporting documents, thus violating principles of natural justice and statutory provisions. The respondent, represented by the Special Government Pleader, took notice of the petition. The petitioner further submitted that 96% of the disputed tax had already been recovered and offered to pre-deposit 25% of the disputed tax as a condition for de novo adjudication, subject to verification of amounts already recovered.
Sections Cited
Section 107
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORDER Mr.R.Parthiban, learned Special Government Pleader takes notice for the respondent. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis __________ Page2 of 6
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 respondent.
In this Writ Petition, the petitioner has challenged the Impugned Order of the respondent, dated 20.05.2025 bearing reference in GSTIN 33FGYPS9464R1ZQ /2021-22. 4. The Impugned Order was preceded by a Show Cause Notice in GST DRC 01 dated 27.02.2025, and the petitioner has not filed his reply and the petitioner had not been provided an opportunity to submit documents to substantiate the same and thus, suffered the Impugned Order dated 20.12.2025. 5. 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 28.07.2026. 6. At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that 96% of the disputed tax already recovered by the respondent. However, the petitioner is willing to pre-deposit 25% of the disputed tax as a condition for de novo adjudication, subject to the verification of the amount already recovered. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis __________ Page3 of 6
The learned counsel for the petitioner has also made an endorsement to that effect in the Court Bundle, which is extracted hereunder:- “The counsel for the petitioner undertakes to pay 25% of the tax amount.”
In view of the above, the impugned order is quashed and the case is remitted back to the respondent to pass a fresh order subject to the petitioner 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, subject to any payment made already shall be adjusted to aforesaid pre-deposit. Any amount paid in excess of 25% shall be adjusted towards the tax liability, if any, as confirmed or towards future tax liability.
Within such time, the petitioner shall also file a reply to the Show Cause Notice in DRC 01 dated 27.02.2025 together with requisite documents to substantiate the case by treating the Impugned Order dated 20.05.2025 as an addendum to the Show Cause Notice dated 27.02.2025. 10. In case the petitioner complies with the above stipulations, the 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 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis __________ Page4 of 6 stipulations, the attachment of the bank account of the petitioner, if any, shall also stand automatically lifted.
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 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 respondent is 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 respondent shall give due notice to the petitioner.
This Writ Petition stands disposed of, with the above observations. No costs. Consequently, connected Writ Miscellaneous Petition is closed. 06-08-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No smn2 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis __________ Page5 of 6 To The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer-2 Commercial Tax Building, Virudhunagar https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis __________ Page6 of 6 C.SARAVANAN, J. smn2 06-08-2026 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.