Tvl. Madurai Meenakshi Traders vs. The Commercial Tax Officer / The State Tax Officer

WP(MD)/20397/2026HC MadrasGSTCNR HCMD01096451202621 July 2026Bench: HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE C. SARAVANAN5 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

Facts

The petitioner, Tvl.Madurai Meenakshi Traders, filed a writ petition before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court challenging an order dated 06.11.2025 passed by the Deputy State Tax Officer-2. This order, passed under Section 73 of the GST enactments, confirmed a demand proposed in a Show Cause Notice dated 09.08.2025 for the tax period April 2021-2022. The demand was confirmed in the absence of a reply from the petitioner. The petitioner contended that two prior proceedings with identical proposals had been initiated and subsequently dropped, indicating a duplication of proceedings. The impugned order was issued by the 2nd Respondent.

Held

The Court held that there were prima facie indications of duplication in the impugned proceedings, as two previous proceedings with identical proposals had been initiated and dropped. Considering this duplication and the petitioner's failure to respond to the Show Cause Notice, the Court decided to quash the impugned order. The case was remitted back to the 2nd Respondent to pass a fresh order on merits. The petitioner was directed to file a proper reply within thirty days of receiving the order, explaining why the demand should be dropped. All recovery proceedings, including the attachment of the petitioner's bank account, were abated. The Court also stated that the petitioner must be heard before any fresh order is passed. The issue of the validity of the demand itself, beyond the procedural defect of duplication, was not decided.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order dated 06.11.2025, passed under Section 73 of the GST enactments, confirming a demand for the tax period April 2021-2022 in the absence of a reply, is liable to be quashed on the grounds of duplication of proceedings. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the impugned proceedings were duplicative, as two prior proceedings with identical proposals had already been initiated and dropped. This duplication indicated a potential error in the current proceedings. Respondents' arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondents. However, the order notes that the petitioner failed to respond to the Show Cause Notice.

Sections Cited

Section 73

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances

W.P.(MD) No. 20397 of 2026 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 21.07.2026 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN W.P.(MD)No.20397 of 2026 and W.M.P.(MD)No.15096 of 2026 Tvl.Madurai Meenakshi Traders, Represented by its Proprietor K.Kaniarasi ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The Commercial Tax Officer/ The State Tax Officer, Aruppukottai Assessment Circle, Commercial Taxes Building, Opposite to CSI Church, Madurai Road, Aruppukottai – 626 101. 2.The Deputy State Tax Officer-2/ The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Aruppukotttai Assessment Circle, Commercial Taxes Building, Opposite to CSI Church, Madurai Road, Aruppukottai – 626 101. ... Respondents 1/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No. 20397 of 2026 Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, to call for records pertaining to impugned order of the 2nd Respondent in Ref.No.ZD331125090029L/2021-2022 dated 06.11.2025 and quash the same. For Petitioner : Mr.B.Rooban For Respondents : Mr.R.Parthiban Counsel for the State of Tamil Nadu

ORDER The Petitioner is before this Court against the Impugned Order dated 06.11.2025 passed under Section 73 of the respective GST Enactments whereby, the proposal in the Show Cause Notice in GST DRC-01 dated 09.08.2025 issued for the Tax Period April 2021-2022 has been confirmed in absence of a Reply.

On perusal of the records, it is revealed that two different proceedings have already been initiated and identical proposals have been considered and dropped. 2/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Thus, there are prima facie indications that there is a duplication in the Impugned Proceedings.

Considering the same and considering the fact that the Petitioner has failed to respond to the Show Cause Notice in GST DRC-01 that preceded the Impugned Order, this Court is inclined to quash the Impugned Order and remit the case back to the 2nd Respondent to pass a fresh order on merits.

Needless to state, the Petitioner shall file a proper Reply explaining the reasons as to why the demand proposed and confirmed vide Impugned Order should be dropped. The Petitioner shall file such Reply within a period of thirty (30) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

Since the Impugned Order is being quashed, all further recovery proceedings including the attachment of the Bank Account of the Petitioner shall stand abated. 3/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Needless to state, before passing any such order the Petitioner shall be heard.

This Writ Petition stands disposed of by way of remand. No costs. Connected Writ Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. 21.07.2026 Neutral Citation : Yes / No arb To: 1.The Commercial Tax Officer/ The State Tax Officer, Aruppukottai Assessment Circle, Commercial Taxes Building, Opposite to CSI Church, Madurai Road, Aruppukottai – 626 101. 2.The Deputy State Tax Officer-2/ The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Aruppukotttai Assessment Circle, Commercial Taxes Building, Opposite to CSI Church, Madurai Road, Aruppukottai – 626 101. 4/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.SARAVANAN, J. arb W.P.(MD)No.20397 of 2026 21.07.2026 5/5 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.