M/S.Sivamurugan Maligai vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer-2
Original PDF →Facts
The Petitioner, M/s. Sivamurugan Maligai, represented by its Proprietrix, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 13.11.2025 and a notice dated 02.05.2026 issued by the Respondent, the Deputy State Tax Officer-2. The impugned order confirmed a demand proposed in a Show Cause Notice (GST DRC-01) dated 27.09.2025, despite the Petitioner not filing a reply and being granted three opportunities for a personal hearing. The Petitioner argued that a subsequent order dated 04.12.2025 by the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer dropped the demand proposed in the Show Cause Notice. The Respondent clarified that this subsequent order pertained to a different, mistakenly issued Show Cause Notice dated 30.09.2025, and did not affect the demand confirmed by the impugned order dated 13.11.2025.
Held
The Court held that the subsequent order dated 04.12.2025 did not drop the demand confirmed by the impugned order dated 13.11.2025, as it related to a different Show Cause Notice issued erroneously. Therefore, the writ petition, as initially argued, was liable to be dismissed. However, considering that the impugned order was passed ex parte and the Petitioner was willing to deposit 25% of the disputed tax, the Court decided to remit the matter back to the Respondent for de novo adjudication. The Petitioner was directed to deposit 25% of the disputed tax within thirty days and file a reply to the Show Cause Notice dated 27.09.2025, treating the impugned order as an addendum. Upon compliance, the Respondent was to pass a fresh order on merits within three months. The attachment of the Petitioner's bank account would be vacated subject to the deposit and the Petitioner not being in arrears for other tax periods. If the Petitioner failed to comply, the Respondent was at liberty to proceed with recovery as if the writ petition was dismissed.
Key Issues
1. Whether the impugned order dated 13.11.2025, confirming the demand in GST DRC-01 dated 27.09.2025, is valid despite the Petitioner's failure to file a reply and the subsequent order dated 04.12.2025 purportedly dropping the demand? Petitioner's Contention: The Petitioner contended that the demand proposed in the Show Cause Notice dated 27.09.2025 was dropped by an order dated 04.12.2025 issued by the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer. The Petitioner also argued that the commodities dealt with were eligible for exemption. Respondent's Contention: The Respondent argued that the order dated 04.12.2025 dropped proceedings related to a separate Show Cause Notice dated 30.09.2025, which was issued by mistake. This order did not negate the demand confirmed by the impugned order dated 13.11.2025, which was based on the Show Cause Notice dated 27.09.2025. The Respondent also relied on the Supreme Court decision in Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Kakinada and others Vs. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limited.
Sections Cited
GST DRC-01
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORDER The Petitioner is before this Court against the Impugned Order dated 13.11.2025 whereby the proposal in the Show Cause Notice in GST DRC-01 dated 27.09.2025 has been confirmed in absence of a Reply to the said Show Cause Notice despite three opportunities being granted to the Petitioner for a personal hearing.
The argument of the Petitioner appears to be that the Petitioner is engaged in selling provisional items and grocery on retail basis. However, the Petitioner is unable to substantiate the same as the commodities dealt by the Petitioner for seeking exemption appears to be medicated toilet soaps, groundnuts, custard powder, sunflower oil (edible grade) and maize flour.
The other argument of the Petitioner appears to be that by an Order dated 04.12.2025, the demand proposed in the Show Cause Notice in GST DRC-01 dated 27.09.2025 was dropped by the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Kulithalai, Karur District. 2/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Learned Counsel for the State of Tamil Nadu on the other hand would submit that after the Show Cause Notice dated 27.09.2025 was issued, the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Kulithalai, Karur District by mistake had issued another Show Cause Notice dated 30.09.2025. It is submitted that after the Impugned Order dated 13.11.2025 was passed, the proceedings initiated pursuant to the Show Cause Notice dated 30.09.2025 was dropped by the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Kulithalai, Karur District vide Order dated 04.12.2025. 5. Having considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the State of Tamil Nadu for the Respondent, it is clear that the subsequent order was passed on 04.12.2025 in view of the Impugned Order dated 13.11.2025 pursuant to the Show Cause Notice dated 30.09.2025. It does not mean that the demand itself has been dropped which was confirmed vide Impugned Order dated 13.11.2025 pursuant to the Show Cause Notice in GST DRC-01 dated 27.09.2025. Therefore, this Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed based on the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the Petitioner.
That apart, even otherwise this Writ Petition is not maintainable in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Assistant Commissioner (CT) 3/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis LTU, Kakinada and others Vs. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limited, 2020 SCC Online SC 440. 7. However, considering the fact that the Impugned Order has been passed ex parte in absence of a Reply, the Petitioner was asked whether the Petitioner is willing to deposit any amount as a pre-deposit for de novo adjudication, the learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner is willing to deposit 25% of the disputed tax. He has also made an endorsement to that effect in the Court Bundle which reads as under:- “The Writ Petition may be allowed and remanded to the Respondent on condition to remit 25% of disputed tax.”
Recording the same, the case is remitted back to the Respondent to pass a fresh order in lieu of the impugned Order dated 13.11.2025 subject to the Petitioner depositing 25% of the disputed tax in cash or 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 GST DRC-01 dated 27.09.2025 together with requisite documents to 4/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis substantiate the case by treating the impugned Order dated 13.11.2025 as an addendum to the Show Cause Notice dated 27.09.2025. 10. 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. Subject to the Petitioner complying with the above stipulations, the attachment of the bank account of the Petitioner shall also stand automatically vacated.
It is made clear that bank attachment shall be lifted subject to the deposit of 25% of the disputed tax as ordered above and the Petitioner not being in arrears of any other amount for any other tax period barring the amount demanded under the impugned Order.
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. 5/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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. 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. 6/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.SARAVANAN, J. arb
2026 7/7 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.