Sandeep Kumar Choudhary vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer - 1
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Sandeep Kumar Choudhary, proprietor of Choudhary Trader, filed a writ petition challenging an order in Form GST DRC-07 dated 10.12.2025, passed by the Deputy State Tax Officer-1. This order pertained to the tax period April 2021 to March 2022 and was preceded by a Show Cause Notice dated 26.09.2025 and subsequent remainders. The petitioner had not responded to these notices, leading to the impugned order. The limitation period for filing an appeal under Section 107 of the GST enactments had expired by the time the writ petition was filed on 24.07.2026. The petitioner offered to pre-deposit 25% of the disputed tax.
Held
The Court quashed the impugned order dated 10.12.2025 and remitted the matter back to the first respondent for fresh 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 petitioner was also directed to file a reply to the Show Cause Notice dated 26.09.2025, along with supporting documents, treating the impugned order as an addendum. The first respondent was instructed to pass a final order on merits and in accordance with law expeditiously, preferably within three months of the reply and pre-deposit. The Court also stipulated that if the petitioner failed to comply with these conditions, the respondents would be at liberty to recover the tax as if the writ petition was dismissed in limine. The Court noted that due notice must be given to the petitioner before passing any final order.
Key Issues
1. Whether the Court should entertain a writ petition when the statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the GST enactments is available, especially when the limitation period has expired? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that they were willing to pre-deposit 25% of the disputed tax as a condition for de novo adjudication, implying a request for the Court to condone the delay and allow a fresh adjudication. Revenue's contention: The judgment does not record any specific argument from the respondents (State of TN). However, their presence and representation indicate they would likely argue against entertaining the writ petition due to the availability of a statutory remedy and the expiry of the appeal period.
Sections Cited
Section 107
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Before: and
Mr.R.Parthiban, learned Counsel for State of TN, takes notice for the respondents.
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 respondents.
In this Writ Petition, the petitioner has challenged the Impugned Order in 2/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Form GST DRC-07 bearing Reference No. ZD331225145775C dated 10.12.2025 passed by the first respondent for the tax period April 2021 to March 2022, which was preceded by a Show Cause Notice in DRC 01 dated 26.09.2025, and remainders dated 27.10.2025, 11.11.2025 and 17.11.2025. However, the petitioner had not taken advantage of the same and thus, suffered the Impugned Order dated 10.12.2025. 4. 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 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:-
“It is submitted that the petitioner herein undertakes to pay the 25% of disputed amount.” 3/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
In view of the above, the impugned order is 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.
Within such time, the petitioner shall also file a reply to the Show Cause Notice in DRC 01 dated 26.09.2025 together with requisite documents to substantiate the case by treating the Impugned Order dated 10.12.2025 as an addendum to the Show Cause Notice dated 26.09.2025. 9. 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.
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 4/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 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.
This Writ Petition stands disposed of, with the above observations. No costs. Consequently, connected Writ Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. Index : Yes / No 29.07.2026 Internet : Yes / No apd To 1. The Deputy State Tax Officer - 1, Kulithalai Assessment Circle, Commercial Taxes Department, No. 1648 / A4, P. Vellapatti Road, Chettipalayam, Puliyur, Karur - 639114. 2. The Assistant Commissioner (ST), Kulithalai Assessment Circle, Commercial Taxes Department, No. 1648 / A4, P. Vellapatti Road, Chettipalayam, Puliyur, Karur – 639114. 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.