M/S.Madura Trade Link vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, M/s. Madura Trade Link, represented by its Proprietor, filed a Writ Petition before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court challenging an order dated 19.12.2025, issued by the Assistant Commissioner (ST), Madurai. This order was passed under Section 73 of the GST enactments for the tax period 2021-22, following a Show Cause Notice dated 04.09.2025. The petitioner had not availed the opportunity for a 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 had expired. The petitioner expressed willingness to pre-deposit 25% of the disputed tax.
Held
The Court quashed the impugned order dated 19.12.2025 and remitted the case back to the respondent for de novo 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 a copy of the order. The Court directed the petitioner to also file a reply to the Show Cause Notice dated 04.09.2025, along with supporting documents, treating the impugned order as an addendum to the notice. If these conditions were met, the respondent was to pass a fresh order on merits and in accordance with law, preferably within three months of the petitioner's compliance. The Court stipulated that if the petitioner failed to comply, the respondent could proceed with recovery as if the writ petition was dismissed. The Court also noted that the limitation period for filing an appeal had expired, which was a significant factor in the decision to grant relief through a writ.
Key Issues
1. Whether the impugned order dated 19.12.2025, passed under Section 73 of the GST enactments, is liable to be quashed for being without jurisdiction and in violation of statutory provisions? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the impugned order was passed without jurisdiction and in clear violation of statutory provisions. They sought to quash the order. The petitioner also undertook to pre-deposit 25% of the disputed tax as a condition for de novo adjudication, indicating a willingness to address the merits of the case if given another opportunity. Respondent's contention: The respondent, represented by the Assistant Commissioner (ST), did not explicitly argue on the merits of the petitioner's challenge to the order. However, they took notice of the writ petition and appeared before the court. The judgment does not record any specific arguments from the respondent regarding the validity of the order or the petitioner's claims.
Sections Cited
Section 73, Section 107
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.
In this Writ Petition, the petitioner has challenged the impugned Order in FORM DRC 07 dated 19.12.2025 bearing reference in GSTIN 33AYCPA0321L1Z4 passed under Section 73 of the respective GST enactments, 2017, by the respondent for the tax period 2021-22, which was preceded by a Show Cause Notice in GST DRC 01 dated 04.09.2025, 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 19.12.2025. 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 undertakes to pay 25% of the 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 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 04.09.2025 together with requisite documents to substantiate the case by treating the Impugned Order dated 19.12.2025 as an addendum to the Show Cause Notice dated 04.09.2025. 9. 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.
Needless to state, before passing any such order, the 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 Petition is closed. Index : Yes / No 31.07.2026 Internet : Yes / No apd To The Assistant Commissioner (ST), Tamilsangam Salai Circle, Madurai. 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.