M/S.Sun Pet Bottle Scraps And Psk Cotton Shirts And Dhottes vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer Ii

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Sun Pet Bottle Scraps and PSK Cotton Shirts and Dhoties, represented by its Proprietor V. Palaniyappan, filed a Writ Petition challenging an order dated 31.12.2025 issued by the Deputy State Tax Officer II, Melur Assessment Circle, Madurai. The impugned order was preceded by a Show Cause Notice dated 24.09.2025. 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 adverse order. The petitioner filed the Writ Petition on 29.07.2026, after the limitation period for filing an appeal under Section 107 of the respective GST Enactments, 2017, had expired. The petitioner offered to pre-deposit 25% of the disputed tax.

Held

The High Court quashed the impugned order dated 31.12.2025 and remitted the case back to the respondent for de novo adjudication. The Court's 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, treating the impugned order as an addendum to the Show Cause Notice. The respondent was instructed to pass a fresh order on merits and in accordance with law expeditiously, preferably within three months of the petitioner's compliance. The Court stipulated that if the petitioner failed to comply with these conditions, the respondent would be at liberty to recover the tax as if the Writ Petition was dismissed. The respondent was also directed to provide due notice to the petitioner before passing any final order. The issue of jurisdiction and violation of statutory provisions was implicitly addressed by quashing the order and allowing for fresh adjudication.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order dated 31.12.2025, issued by the Deputy State Tax Officer II, is without jurisdiction and in clear violation of statutory provisions, as contended by the petitioner? 2. Whether the petitioner, having failed to file a reply to the Show Cause Notice and not being provided an opportunity to submit documents, is entitled to a de novo adjudication, especially when the appeal period has expired? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the impugned order was passed without jurisdiction and in violation of statutory provisions. They also contended that they were not given a proper opportunity to present their case, as they did not file a reply to the Show Cause Notice and were not allowed to submit supporting documents. The petitioner expressed willingness to pre-deposit 25% of the disputed tax to facilitate a fresh adjudication. Revenue's Arguments: The respondent, represented by the Special Government Pleader, took notice of the petition. No specific arguments from the revenue's side are recorded in the judgment regarding the merits of the case or the petitioner's contentions.