Tvl. Vetri Construction vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer - 2
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Tvl. Vetri Construction, represented by its Proprietrix Vetri Selvi, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 29.12.2025 passed by the respondent, the Deputy State Tax Officer-2, Tenkasi Assessment Circle, under Section 73 of the TNGST Act, 2017, for the assessment year 2021-22. The petitioner's attempt to appeal the original order before the Appellate Authority was unsuccessful due to being filed beyond the statutory limitation period. An application for rectification of the impugned order was also rejected. The petitioner had previously deposited 10% of the disputed tax, amounting to Rs. 38,860/-, at the time of filing the appeal. The petitioner expressed willingness to deposit an additional 15% of the disputed tax.
Held
The Court quashed the impugned order dated 29.12.2025. The reasoning was based on the petitioner's undertaking to deposit an additional 15% of the disputed tax, over and above the 10% already pre-deposited. The case was remitted back to the respondent to pass a fresh order. The petitioner was directed to deposit the additional 15% of the disputed tax within thirty days of receiving the order. Furthermore, the petitioner was required to file a reply to the Show Cause Notice dated 22.09.2025, along with supporting documents, treating the impugned order as an addendum to the Show Cause Notice. The respondent was instructed to pass a final order on merits within three months of receiving the reply and pre-deposit, after giving due notice to the petitioner. Failure to comply with these stipulations would allow the respondent to recover the tax as if the writ petition was dismissed.
Key Issues
1. Whether the impugned order dated 29.12.2025, passed by the respondent under Section 73 of the TNGST Act, 2017, is liable to be quashed as cryptic, nonspeaking, illegal, arbitrary, and without jurisdiction. The petitioner argued that the order was passed without providing a proper opportunity of being heard and lacked proper reasoning. The revenue did not present any specific arguments against this contention, but the court's decision implies a procedural deficiency in the original order. 2. Whether the respondent should be directed to pass a fresh assessment order after affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard. The petitioner sought a fresh assessment, emphasizing the need for a proper hearing. The respondent, through its counsel, accepted notice and did not oppose the petitioner's request for a fresh assessment, especially in light of the petitioner's undertaking to make further pre-deposits.
Sections Cited
Section 73
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Before: and
M/s.P.Sudarkodi Natchiyar, learned Counsel for State of TN, takes notice for the 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 and learned Counsel for State of TN for the respondent.
The petitioner is before this Court against the impugned order dated 29.12.2025 bearing reference in GSTIN. 33ACYPV1591P1ZG /2021-22 passed under Section 73 of the respective GST enactments, 2017 by the respondent, after an attempt of the petitioner to redress the grievance before the Appellate Authority turned futile as the appeal was filed on 16.06.2025 beyond the statutory period of limitation. 2/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
It appears that during the interregnum, the petitioner had also moved an application for rectification of the Impugned Order, which was rejected.
It is noticed that at the time of filing of an appeal before the Appellate Authority, the petitioner has also deposited 10% of the disputed tax i.e., Rs.38,860/-.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is willing to deposit another 15% of the disputed tax over and above the amount that was already pre-deposited alongwith the appeal.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has also made an endorsement to that effect in the Court Bundle, which is extracted hereunder:-
“The Writ Petitioner undertakes to pay 15% of disputed tax.”
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 15% of the disputed tax, over and above the amount already pre- 3/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis deposited at the time of filing of an appeal, 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.
Within such time, the petitioner shall also file a reply to the Show Cause Notice in GST DRC 01 dated 22.09.2025 together with requisite documents to substantiate the case by treating the Impugned Order dated 29.12.2025 as an addendum to the Show Cause Notice dated 22.09.2025. 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.
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. 4/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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. Index : Yes / No 31.07.2026 Internet : Yes / No apd To The Deputy State Tax Officer- 2, Tenkasi Assessment Circle, Commercial Taxes Buildings, Tenkasi. 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.