Santhoshkumar vs. The State Tax Officer (Fac)
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Santhoshkumar, filed a writ petition challenging an Assessment Order-in-Original dated 02.12.2025, a summary of the order in FORM GST DRC-07 dated 02.12.2025, and a consequential order dated 09.07.2026, which resulted in the attachment of his bank account. The petitioner argued that he was not provided an opportunity to submit documents to substantiate his reply to the Show Cause Notice dated 10.09.2025. The limitation period for filing an appeal under Section 107 of the GST enactments had expired, and the writ petition was filed on 30.07.2026. The petitioner stated that 55% of the disputed tax had already been recovered and offered to pre-deposit 25% of the disputed tax.
Held
The Court quashed the impugned orders and remitted the case back to the first respondent for a fresh adjudication. This decision was based on the petitioner's undertaking to deposit 25% of the disputed tax in cash within thirty days from the receipt of the order, with any previously paid amounts to be adjusted. The Court directed that the petitioner should also file a reply to the Show Cause Notice along with requisite documents, treating the impugned order as an addendum to the Show Cause Notice. The first respondent was instructed to pass a fresh order on merits within three months of the petitioner's compliance. 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 made it clear that if the petitioner failed to comply with these stipulations, the respondents were at liberty to proceed for recovery as if the writ petition was dismissed. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioner was denied a reasonable opportunity to present his case and submit supporting documents before the impugned order dated 02.12.2025 was passed, thereby violating principles of natural justice, particularly in light of the Show Cause Notice dated 10.09.2025 and the petitioner's reply dated 30.10.2025? 2. Whether the Court should entertain a writ petition when the statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the GST enactments is available, albeit time-barred? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that he was not afforded a proper opportunity to substantiate his reply to the Show Cause Notice. He also submitted that 55% of the disputed tax had already been recovered and expressed willingness to pre-deposit an additional 25% of the disputed tax as a condition for fresh adjudication. Revenue's arguments: The judgment does not record specific arguments made by the Revenue. However, the existence of the impugned orders and the bank account attachment implies the Revenue's position was to uphold its assessment and recovery proceedings.
Sections Cited
Section 73, Section 107
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 2/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis State of TN for the first respondent and learned Standing Counsel for the second respondent.
In this Writ Petition, the petitioner has challenged the impugned Assessment Order-in-Original dated 02.12.2025 bearing reference in Ref.No. Ref.No. 33GDPPS9602Q2ZH (Wrongly mentioned as GST No. 33ABAFS5036R2ZT), along with the consequential summary of the order in FORM GST DRC-07 bearing Ref.No. ZD331225025675J dated 02.12.2025 of the respondent and consequential order 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 10.09.2025, pursuant to which the petitioner has filed his reply dated 30.10.2025. However, the petitioner had not been provided an opportunity to submit documents to substiate the same and thus, suffered the Impugned Order dated 02.12.2025. 5. It is noticed that the limitation for filing an appeal under Section 107 of 3/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 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 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- 4/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis deposit. Any amount paid in excess of 25% shall be adjusted towares the tax liability, if any, as confirmed or towards future tax liability.
Within such time, the petitioner shall also file a reply to the Show Cause Notice in DRC 01 dated 10.09.2025 together with requisite documents to substantiate the case by treating the Impugned Order dated 02.12.2025 as an addendum to the Show Cause Notice dated 10.09.2025. 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 5/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis demanded under the impugned Order.
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.
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 6/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 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. 7/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.SARAVANAN, J.
apd
2026 8/8 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.