Tvl. Selvi And Co. vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Tvl. Selvi and Co., challenged an order in DRC-07 dated 09.02.2026, issued by the Assistant Commissioner (ST), Dindigul Fort Assessment Circle. This order was passed under Section 73 of the GST enactments for the tax period 2022-23, following a Show Cause Notice (DRC-01) dated 26.09.2025. The petitioner was offered a personal hearing but did not avail it, leading to the impugned order. The petitioner filed the present Writ Petition on 27.07.2026, after the limitation period for filing an appeal under Section 107 of the GST enactments had expired. The petitioner expressed willingness to pre-deposit 25% of the disputed tax.
Held
The Court quashed the impugned order dated 09.02.2026 and remitted the case back to the 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 the order. The petitioner was also directed to file a reply to the Show Cause Notice (DRC-01) dated 26.09.2025, along with supporting documents, within the same period, treating the impugned order as an addendum to the SCN. The respondent was instructed to pass a final order on merits and in accordance with law 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 was at liberty to recover the tax as if the writ petition was dismissed. The respondent must provide due notice to the petitioner before passing any further order. No issue was expressly left undecided.
Key Issues
1. Whether the impugned order dated 09.02.2026, passed under Section 73 of the GST enactments, is liable to be quashed for violating principles of natural justice and being devoid of merits? The petitioner argued that the impugned order should be quashed due to procedural irregularities and a violation of natural justice, as they were not afforded a proper opportunity to present their case. They also contended that the order was passed after the limitation period for appeal had expired, and sought an opportunity for de novo adjudication. The revenue's argument is not explicitly recorded in the judgment, but their participation as the respondent implies a defense of the impugned order. The petitioner's willingness to pre-deposit 25% of the disputed tax was a key factor in the court's decision.
Sections Cited
Section 73, Section 107
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Before: and
Mr.S.Venkatesh, 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 Order in DRC 07 dated 09.02.2026 bearing reference in Ref.No.ZD330226070363O passed under Section 73 of respective GST enactments, 2017, by the respondent for the tax period 2022-23, which was preceded by a Show Cause Notice in DRC 01 dated 26.09.2025 (mentioned as 27.09.2025 in the impugned order), 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 09.02.2026. 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 27.07.2026. 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:-
“The petitioner is ready to pay 25% of the disputed tax amount as ordered by 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 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. 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 DRC 01 dated 26.09.2025 together with requisite documents to substantiate the case by treating the Impugned Order dated 09.02.2026 as an addendum to the Show Cause Notice dated 26.09.2025. 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 apd To The Assistant Commissioner (ST), Dindigul Fort Assessment Circle, Commercial Taxes Office (Integrated Building), Sub Collector Office Road, Spencer Compound, Dindigul 6. 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.