Tvl. Shree Infrastructures vs. The Appellate Deputy Commissioner
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Tvl. Shree Infrastructures, filed a writ petition challenging an assessment order dated February 20, 2025, passed by the State Tax Officer for the assessment year 2020-21 under Section 73 of the TNGST Act, 2017, and the subsequent proceedings of the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (State Taxes) dated May 29, 2026. The petitioner had failed to respond to a show cause notice issued on November 23, 2024. The petitioner had already pre-deposited 10% of the disputed tax at the time of filing an appeal before the first respondent. The petitioner expressed willingness to pay an additional 15% of the disputed tax. The court noted that the appeal was beyond the condonable period of limitation.
Held
The Court, by consent of the parties, disposed of the writ petition. It directed the petitioner to deposit an additional 15% of the disputed tax in cash from their Electronic Cash Register within thirty days of receiving a copy of the order, in addition to the 10% already pre-deposited. Upon compliance, the attachment of the petitioner's bank account, if any, would stand automatically vacated, provided the petitioner was not in arrears for any other tax period. The Court clarified that any amount recovered or paid would be adjusted towards the pre-deposit, subject to verification by the first respondent. The first respondent was directed to proceed to pass fresh orders on the petitioner's appeal on merits and in accordance with law, preferably within three months of the deposit. The Court also stipulated that if the petitioner failed to comply with the conditions, the first respondent was at liberty to proceed for recovery as if the writ petition was dismissed. The first respondent was also required to give due notice to the petitioner before passing any order.
Key Issues
1. Whether the Court should direct the Appellate Deputy Commissioner to dispose of the appeal on merits, despite it being filed beyond the condonable period of limitation, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner sought to quash the assessment and appellate orders, alleging illegality, arbitrariness, lack of jurisdiction, contravention of the TNGST Act, and violation of natural justice. They prayed for a fresh assessment after being heard. The petitioner also undertook to pay 25% of the disputed tax in total. Revenue's arguments: The respondents, represented by the State Tax Officer and the Appellate Deputy Commissioner, did not explicitly record arguments in the judgment. However, their counsel took notice and consented to the disposal of the writ petition.
Sections Cited
Section 73
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Before: and
Mr.R.Parthiban, learned counsel for the State of Tamil Nadu, takes notice for the respondents. 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 appearing for the respondents. 3.The petitioner is before this Court against the proceedings of the first respondent in FORM GST APL-02 (ARN-AD3310250493867) dated 29.05.2026 and the assessment order passed by the second respondent in GSTIN-33ACDFS0410K1ZJ/2020-21 dated 20.02.2025 for the assessment year 2020-21 under section 73 of TNGST Act 2017. 2/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
It is submitted that after the petitioner failed to respond to the show cause notice in DRC 01 issued under Section 73 on 23.11.2024, an order dated 20.02.2025 has been passed for the assessment year 2020-21, against which, the petitioner has filed an appeal before the first respondent. It appears that at the time of filing an appeal, the petitioner has already pre deposited 10% of the disputed tax. 5.It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is willing to pay an additional 15% of the disputed tax over and above the 10% already pre deposited at the time of filing an appeal. The learned counsel has made an endorsement to that effect in the Court bundle, which is extracted hereunder:- “The writ petitioner undertakes to pay 25% of the disputed tax.” 6.The appeal as such cannot be directed to be disposed of on merits, as it is beyond the condonable period of limitation. However, balancing the interests of the parties, appropriate orders have been passed in the past under similar circumstances. 3/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents and having considered the consistent view taken by this Court in similar circumstances, this Court is inclined to dispose of this writ petition, subject to the petitioner depositing additional 15% of the disputed tax over and above the 10% already pre-deposited at the time of filing 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. 8.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 petitioner depositing 15% of the disputed tax over and above the 10% already pre-deposited at the time of filing an appeal and the petitioner not being in arrears of any other amount for any other tax period barring the amount demanded under the impugned order. 4/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Needless to state, any amount recovered from the petitioner/paid by the petitioner shall be adjusted towards the aforesaid pre-deposit as ordered above. This will be however subject to verification by the first respondent. 11.Subject to the petitioner complying with the above stipulated conditions, the first respondent shall proceed to pass fresh orders on the appeal preferred by the petitioner on merits and in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of three (3) months from the date of such deposit. 12.In case the Petitioner fails to comply with any of the conditions stipulated above, the first 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. 13.Needless to state, before passing any such order, the first respondent shall give due notice to the Petitioner. 5/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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 1.The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (State Taxes) (GST Appeals) at Thiruvarur Trichy 12A/26, Ponnagar 2nd Main Road Near Guru Inn Apartment, Trichy - 620 001. 2.The State Tax Officer Mannargudi Assessment Circle Commercial Taxes Buildings Mannargudi - 614 001. 6/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.SARAVANAN, J.
mm
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.