V Nagaraju vs. The State Tax Officer
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, V Nagaraju, filed a Writ Petition before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court challenging an Assessment Order dated 18.02.2026, issued by the State Tax Officer, Thuraiyur Assessment Circle, Trichy. This order was passed for the tax period 2022-23 under Sections 63 and 76 of the GST enactments. The assessment was preceded by a Show Cause Notice dated 09.09.2025 and subsequent reminders. The petitioner had not responded to the Show Cause Notice or its reminders, 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.
Held
The Court quashed the impugned Assessment Order dated 18.02.2026. The case was remitted back to the first respondent (State Tax Officer) for fresh adjudication. This decision was made conditional upon the petitioner depositing 10% 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 09.09.2025, along with supporting documents, within the same period, treating the impugned order as an addendum to the notice. If these conditions were met, the first respondent was to pass a fresh order on merits within three months of the reply and pre-deposit. Failure to comply would allow the respondents to recover the tax as if the Writ Petition were dismissed. The Court noted that the limitation for appeal had expired but entertained the petition based on the petitioner's undertaking.
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, particularly when the limitation period for filing such an appeal has expired? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner, through their counsel, expressed willingness to pre-deposit 10% of the disputed tax amount as a condition for de novo adjudication. This willingness was formally endorsed in the court bundle. Revenue's contention: The judgment does not explicitly record any specific argument from the respondents (State Tax Officer and Joint Commissioner). However, their counsel took notice of the petition and appeared before the court.
Sections Cited
Section 63, Section 76, 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 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 the learned Counsel for State of TN for the respondent.
In this Writ Petition, the petitioner has challenged the impugned Assessment Order dated 18.02.2026 bearing reference in GSTIN 33AUHPN5570B1ZU, Temp ID 332500003193TMP passed under Sections 63 and 76 of respective GST enactments, 2017, by the first respondent for the tax period 2022-23, which was preceded by a Show Cause Notice in DRC 01 dated 09.09.2025 and reminders dated 04.11.2025, 14.11.2025 and 29.01.2026. 2/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis However, the petitioner had not taken advantage of the same and thus, suffered the Impugned Order dated 18.02.2026. 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 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:-
“On fresh adjudication, I undertake to pay 10% of the tax amount.”
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 10% of the disputed tax in cash from the petitioner's Electronic Cash 3/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 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 09.09.2025 together with requisite documents to substantiate the case by treating the Impugned Order dated 18.02.2026 as an addendum to the Show Cause Notice dated 09.09.2025. 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 accordance with law as if this Writ Petition was dismissed in limine today.
Needless to state, before passing any such order, the respondent shall 4/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 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 State Tax Officer, Thuraiyur Assessment Circle, Trichy.
The Joint Commissioner (ST), Commercial Tax Department, Trichy. 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.