V.Annadurai vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer 1
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, V. Annadurai, filed a writ petition before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court challenging an order dated 26.02.2026, issued by the Deputy State Tax Officer (the first respondent). This order pertained to the tax period 2022-23 and was preceded by a Show Cause Notice dated 01.09.2025 (DRC 01). The petitioner had not availed the opportunity for a personal hearing offered in the Show Cause Notice, leading to the impugned order. The writ petition was filed on 29.07.2026, after the limitation period for filing an appeal under Section 107 of the respective GST enactments had expired. The petitioner expressed willingness to pre-deposit 10% of the disputed tax.
Held
The Court quashed the impugned order dated 26.02.2026 and remitted the case back to the first respondent for de novo adjudication. This decision was made subject to the petitioner depositing 10% 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 01.09.2025, along with supporting documents, within the same period, treating the impugned order as an addendum to the Show Cause Notice. The first 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 respondents could proceed to recover the tax as if the writ petition had been dismissed. The first respondent was also directed to provide due notice to the petitioner before passing any order.
Key Issues
1. Whether the impugned order dated 26.02.2026, passed by the first respondent for the tax period 2022-23, is liable to be quashed as illegal, considering the petitioner's failure to avail the personal hearing and the expiry of the appeal limitation period. Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that they were willing to pre-deposit 10% of the disputed tax as a condition for de novo adjudication, indicating a desire to address the merits of the case. The petitioner made an endorsement to this effect. Respondents' contention: The respondents, represented by the Special Government Pleader, took notice of the petition. No specific arguments were recorded from the respondents regarding the merits of the case or the petitioner's failure to appear for the personal hearing, beyond acknowledging the filing of the writ petition and the expiry of the appeal period.
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 Order dated 26.02.2026 bearing reference in GSTIN 33BIPPA0971G1ZH, Temp ID 332500003032TMP passed by the first respondent for the tax period 2022-23, which was preceded by a Show Cause Notice in DRC 01 dated 26.02.2026, 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 26.02.2026. 2/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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 29.07.2026. 5. At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is willing to pre-deposit 10% 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:-
“On fresh adjudication, petitioner undertakes to deposit 10% of the tax amount.”
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 depositing 10% 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. 3/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Within such time, the petitioner shall also file a reply to the Show Cause Notice in DRC 01 dated 01.09.2025, together with requisite documents to substantiate the case by treating the Impugned Order dated 26.02.2026 as an addendum to the Show Cause Notice dated 01.09.2025. 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.
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. 4/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
This Writ Petition stands disposed of, with the above observations. No costs. Consequently, connected Writ Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. Index : Yes / No 03.08.2026 Internet : Yes / No apd To 1. The Deputy State Tax Officer 1, Thuraiyur Assessment Circle, Trichy.
The Assistant Commissioner (ST), Commercial Tax Department, Trichy. 5/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.SARAVANAN, J.
apd
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.