M/S.Senthil Works vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer-1
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, M/s. Senthil Works, filed a writ petition challenging orders passed by the Deputy State Tax Officer-1 for the financial year 2021-2022. The impugned proceedings included an order dated 24.11.2025, a consequential order dated 24.11.2025, and a rectification order dated 26.05.2026. These orders were preceded by a show cause notice dated 22.08.2025, to which the petitioner did not file any reply or appear for personal hearings, despite reminders. The respondent passed the impugned orders ex-parte. During the hearing, the petitioner's counsel undertook to pre-deposit 25% of the disputed tax.
Held
The Court quashed the impugned order dated 24.11.2025, the consequential order dated 24.11.2025, and the rectification order dated 26.05.2026, for the financial year 2021-2022. The case was remitted back to the respondent for de novo adjudication. This decision was based on the petitioner's undertaking to pre-deposit 25% of the disputed tax in cash from their electronic cash ledger within thirty days. The Court directed the petitioner to file a reply to the show cause notice dated 22.08.2025, along with supporting documents, treating the impugned order of 24.11.2025 as an addendum. If the petitioner complied, the respondent was to pass a fresh order on merits within three months. The attachment of the petitioner's bank account, if any, would be automatically vacated upon compliance. The Court clarified that if the petitioner failed to comply, the respondent could proceed to recover the tax as if the writ petition was dismissed.
Key Issues
1. Whether the impugned orders passed by the respondent under Section 73 and Section 161 of the CGST Act, 2017, for the financial year 2021-2022 are liable to be quashed on the ground of procedural irregularities and lack of opportunity for the petitioner to present their case? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that they were not afforded a proper opportunity to present their case, as they did not file a reply or appear for personal hearings due to circumstances not detailed in the judgment. They sought to quash the impugned orders. Respondent's contention: The respondent contended that the petitioner failed to respond to the show cause notice and subsequent reminders, leading to the ex-parte passing of the impugned orders. The respondent relied on the fact that the petitioner did not comply with the statutory notices.
Sections Cited
Section 73, Section 161
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Before: and
Ms.P.Sudarkodi Natchiyar, learned counsel for the State of Tamil Nadu, takes notice for the respondent. 2.By consent, this writ petition is disposed of at the time of admission after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State of Tamil Nadu for the respondent. 3.This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order passed by the respondent vide GSTIN 33ARPPS4983E2Z9/2021-2022, dated 24.11.2025 along with consequential order in ZD3311254078987 dated 24.11.2025 and the rectification order bearing Ref.No ZD330526261032S dated 26.05.2026 for the financial year 2021-2022, which was preceded by a show cause notice in Form GST DRC-01 dated 22.08.2025, wherein the petitioner was called upon to file objections along with documentary evidences within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of such notice. 2/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
The petitioner was also issued with reminders on 09.10.2025, 27.10.2025 and 04.11.2025, which called upon the petitioner to file a reply and to appear for a personal hearing. The Petitioner however neither filed any reply nor appeared for personal hearings. Thus, the impugned order has been passed. 5.When the matter is taken up for hearing today, the learned counsel for the petitioner appearing through video conferencing undertakes that the petitioner will pre-deposit 25% of the disputed tax as a condition for de novo adjudication. 6.Recording the same, the impugned order passed by the respondent in GSTIN:33ARPPS4983E2Z9/2021-2022, dated 24.11.2025, the consequential order in ZD3311254078987 dated 24.11.2025 and the rectification order bearing Ref.No ZD330526261032S dated 26.05.2026 for the financial year 2021-2022 are hereby 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 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 Form GST DRC-01 dated 22.08.2025 together with requisite documents to substantiate the case by treating the impugned order dated 24.11.2025 as an addendum to the show cause notice dated 22.08.2025. 8.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 months of such reply/pre-deposit. Subject to the petitioner complying with the above stipulations, the attachment of the bank account of the petitioner, if any, shall also stand automatically vacated. 9.It is made clear that the 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. 10.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 issue due notice on the petitioner. 12.This Writ Petition stands disposed of with the above observations. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. Index : Yes / No 30.07.2026 Internet : Yes / No mm To The Deputy State Tax Officer-1, Office of the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Palani-2 Assessment Circle, Near Periya Avudaiyar Kovil Arch, Kothaimangalam Post, Palani 624 618 5/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.SARAVANAN, J.
mm
2026 Draft order only not a final order. 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.