Santhoshkumar vs. The State Tax Officer (Fac)
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Santhoshkumar, filed a writ petition before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court challenging an Assessment Order-in-Original dated 26.12.2025, a summary of the order in FORM GST DRC-07 dated 26.12.2025, and a consequential order dated 09.07.2026, which resulted in the attachment of his bank account. The impugned orders were preceded by a Show Cause Notice dated 23.09.2025. The petitioner had not availed the personal hearing offered in response to the show cause notice. The writ petition was filed on 30.07.2026, after the limitation period for filing an appeal under Section 107 of the GST enactments had expired. The petitioner stated that 55% of the disputed tax had already been recovered by the respondent.
Held
The Court quashed the impugned orders and remitted the case back to the first respondent for a fresh adjudication. This decision was made conditional upon the petitioner depositing 25% of the disputed tax in cash from their Electronic Cash Register within thirty days of receiving the order. Any amount already paid would be adjusted towards this pre-deposit, and any excess payment would be adjusted against confirmed tax liability or future tax liability. The petitioner was also directed to file a reply to the Show Cause Notice dated 23.09.2025, treating the impugned order dated 26.12.2025 as an addendum. The Court stipulated that if the petitioner complied with these conditions, the first respondent would pass a final order on merits within three months of the reply and pre-deposit. Upon compliance, the attachment of the petitioner's bank account would be automatically vacated, provided the petitioner was not in arrears for any other tax period. The Court also noted that if the petitioner failed to comply, the respondents were at liberty to proceed with recovery as if the writ petition was dismissed.
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, especially when the limitation period has expired? 2. Whether the impugned orders, including the attachment of the bank account, should be quashed and the matter remitted for fresh adjudication, considering the petitioner's willingness to pre-deposit a portion of the disputed tax and the fact that a significant portion has already been recovered? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that while the appeal period had expired, they were willing to pre-deposit 25% of the disputed tax as a condition for de novo adjudication. They also highlighted that 55% of the disputed tax had already been recovered by the respondent. They sought quashing of the impugned orders and lifting of the bank account attachment. Revenue's arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the Revenue (1st Respondent).
Sections Cited
Section 73, Section 107, FORM GST DRC-07, FORM GST DRC-01, FORM GST DRC 13
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Before: and
Mr.S.Venkatesh, learned Counsel for State of TN, takes notice for the first respondent. Mr.V.Balasubramanian, learned Standing Counsel takes notice for the second respondent.
This Writ Petition is taken up for final hearing at the time of admission with the consent of the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Counsel for State of TN for the first respondent and learned Standing Counsel for the second 2/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis respondent.
In this Writ Petition, the petitioner has challenged the impugned Assessment Order-in-Original dated 26.12.2025 bearing reference in Ref.No. 33GDPPS9602Q2ZH /2021-22, along with the consequential summary of the order in FORM GST DRC-07 bearing Ref.No. ZD3312253938651 dated 26.12.2025 of the respondent and consequential order in Form GST DRC 13 dated 09.07.2026, wherein the bank account of the petitioner has been attached.
The Impugned Assessment Order was preceded by a Show Cause Notice in GST DRC 01 dated 23.09.2025, 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 26.12.2025. 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 30.07.2026. 6. At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that 55% of 3/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 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.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has also made an endorsement to that effect in the Court Bundle, which is extracted hereunder:-
“I submit that upon instruction from my client, I undertake to pay 25% of the disputed tax. I further submit that the respondent already recovered 55% of the disputed tax.”
In view of the above, the impugned orders are 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, subject to any payment made already shall be adjusted to aforesaid pre- deposit. Any amount paid in excess of 25% shall be adjusted towares the tax liability, if any, as confirmed or towards future tax liability. 4/7 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 23.09.2025 together with requisite documents to substantiate the case by treating the Impugned Order dated 26.12.2025 as an addendum to the Show Cause Notice dated 23.09.2025. 10. 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. Subject to the petitioner complying with the above stipulations, the attachment of the bank account of the petitioner shall also stand automatically vacated.
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 5/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 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.
This Writ Petition stands disposed of, with the above observations. No costs. Consequently, connected Writ Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. Index : Yes / No 31.07.2026 Internet : Yes / No apd To 1. The State Tax Officer (FAC), (Also Known as Deputy Commercial Tax Officer), Office of the Assistant Commissioner State Tax, Palani-II Assessment Circle, CT Building, Periyavudaiyar Kovil Pirivu, Kothaimangalam, Palani Tamil Nadur – 624 618. 2. The Branch Manager, State Bank of India, 3 by 67 Ward II Main Road, Devatoor, Oddanchatram Taluk 624 614. 6/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.SARAVANAN, J.
apd
2026 7/7 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.