Ravi Muthuraj vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer-2
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Ravi Muthuraj, filed a writ petition before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court challenging an order dated 30.12.2025 passed by the Deputy State Tax Officer-2, Tirunelveli. This order was preceded by a Show Cause Notice dated 15.09.2025, which also called for a personal hearing. The petitioner did not avail the personal hearing and consequently suffered 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 25% of the disputed tax amount for de novo adjudication.
Held
The Court quashed the impugned order dated 30.12.2025 and remitted the case back to the first respondent for de novo adjudication. This decision was made subject to 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 15.09.2025, along with supporting documents, within the same period, treating the impugned order as an addendum to the show cause notice. The first respondent was directed to pass a fresh order on merits within three months of the petitioner's compliance. The Court stipulated that if the petitioner failed to comply with these conditions, the respondents would be at liberty to recover the tax as if the writ petition was dismissed. The Court explicitly noted that the limitation for filing an appeal had expired but proceeded to grant relief based on the petitioner's undertaking.
Key Issues
1. Whether the Court should entertain a writ petition when the statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the GST enactments is available but the limitation period has expired? 2. Whether the impugned order passed by the first respondent is liable to be quashed on grounds of illegality, lack of jurisdiction, and violation of principles of natural justice? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the impugned order was illegal, without jurisdiction, and in gross violation of the principles of natural justice. The petitioner also made an endorsement accepting to pay 25% of the disputed tax amount, indicating a willingness to comply with conditions for a fresh adjudication. Revenue's Arguments: The judgment records that the learned Special Government Pleader took notice for the respondents. No specific arguments from the revenue's side are recorded in the judgment regarding the merits of the case or the maintainability of the writ petition beyond taking notice.
Sections Cited
Section 107
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Before: and Dr.MGR New Bus Stand, Dr.MGR New Bus Stand,
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 30.12.2025 bearing reference in 33AVZPM2924M2ZV/2021-22 passed by the first respondent, which was preceded by a Show Cause Notice in DRC 01 dated 15.09.2025, 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 30.12.2025. 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 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:-
“The petitioner accepts to pay 25% of the disputed tax amount and the same may be considered by this Hon’ble Court.”
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 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. 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 15.09.2025 together with requisite documents to substantiate the case by treating the Impugned Order dated 30.12.2025 as an addendum to the Show Cause Notice dated 15.09.2025. 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-2, Tirunelveli Junction Assessment Circle, Dr.MGR New Bus Stand, Veinthankulam, Tirunelveli - 627005. 2. The Assistant Commissioner (ST), Tirunelveli Junction Assessment Circle, Dr.MGR New Bus Stand, Veinthankulam, Tirunelveli – 627005. 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.