S Ramaiah vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer-1/Deputy Commercial Tax Officer
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, S Ramaiah, filed a writ petition before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court challenging an order dated 05.02.2026 passed by the Deputy State Tax Officer -1, Pudukkottai. This order was preceded by a Show Cause Notice dated 10.10.2025, to which the petitioner had not responded, leading to the impugned order. The petitioner filed the writ petition on 24.07.2026, after the limitation period for filing an appeal under Section 107 of the respective GST enactments had expired. The petitioner expressed willingness to pre-deposit 10% of the disputed tax for de novo adjudication.
Held
The Court quashed the impugned order dated 05.02.2026 and remitted the case back to the respondent for fresh adjudication. This decision was made subject to the petitioner depositing 10% of the disputed tax in cash from their Electronic Cash Register within thirty days of receiving the order. The petitioner was also directed to file a reply to the Show Cause Notice dated 10.10.2025, along with supporting documents, within the same period, treating the impugned order as an addendum to the notice. The respondent was instructed to pass a final order on merits expeditiously, preferably within three months of the petitioner's compliance. The Court also stipulated that if the petitioner failed to comply with these conditions, the respondent could recover the tax as if the writ petition was dismissed in limine. The respondent was also required to provide due notice to the petitioner before passing any order. The issue of limitation for filing an appeal was implicitly overcome by the Court's direction for de novo adjudication.
Key Issues
1. Whether the Court should entertain a writ petition filed beyond the statutory limitation period for appeal under Section 107 of the GST enactments, given the petitioner's willingness to pre-deposit a portion of the disputed tax? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that they were willing to pre-deposit 10% of the disputed tax as a condition for fresh adjudication. They made an endorsement in the court bundle undertaking to pay this amount as directed by the Court. Respondent's contention: The respondent, represented by the State counsel, took notice of the writ petition. The judgment does not record any specific argument from the respondent regarding the limitation period or the maintainability of the writ petition on merits.
Sections Cited
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 Assessment Order in GST ASMT 15 dated 05.02.2026 bearing reference in Temporary ID. 332500004268TMP/2021-22 along with Form GST DRC-07 in Reference No. ZD330226036065S dated 05.02.2026 passed by the respondent, which was preceded by a Show Cause Notice in ASMT 14 dated 10.10.2025, 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 05.02.2026. 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 24.07.2026. 5. At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is willing to pre-deposit 10% 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:-
“Petitioner undertakes to pay 10% of the amount demanded as per the direction of this Hon’ble Court.”
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 10% 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 ASMT 14 dated 10.10.2025 together with requisite documents to substantiate the case by treating the Impugned Order dated 05.02.2026 as an addendum to the Show Cause Notice dated 10.10.2025. 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 29.07.2026 Internet : Yes / No (2/3) apd To The Deputy State Tax Officer -1/ Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Pudukkottai -2 Assessment Circle, Commercial Taxes Department, Pudukkottai District. 5/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.SARAVANAN, J.
apd
2026 (2/3) 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.