Tvl. Devi Readymades vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer
Original PDF →Facts
The Petitioner, Tvl. Devi Readymades, represented by its Proprietor, R. Sivaguru Kuttalam, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 22.12.2025 passed by the Deputy State Tax Officer, Nagercoil-1 Assessment Circle. This order confirmed the proposal made in a Show Cause Notice dated 25.09.2025 (GST DRC-01) in the absence of a reply from the petitioner. The petitioner stated that 52% of the disputed tax had already been recovered post facto on 25.03.2026 and expressed readiness to pay 25% of the disputed tax, subject to verification. The counsel for the State suggested remitting the case back to the respondent for a fresh order.
Held
The Court quashed the impugned order dated 22.12.2025 and remitted the case back to the Respondent. This decision was based on the submissions made by both the petitioner and the respondent. The petitioner was directed to deposit 25% of the disputed tax within thirty days of receiving the order. Additionally, the petitioner was required to file a reply to the Show Cause Notice dated 25.09.2025, along with supporting documents, treating the impugned order as an addendum to the notice. The Court clarified that if any amount was recovered on 25.03.2026, no further pre-deposit would be required for de novo adjudication, subject to verification. If the petitioner complied with these stipulations, the Respondent was to pass a final order on merits within three months after hearing the petitioner. The attachment of the petitioner's bank account, if any, was to be lifted, provided the petitioner was not in arrears for any other tax period. If the petitioner failed to comply, the Respondent was at liberty to proceed as if the writ petition was dismissed.
Key Issues
1. Whether the impugned order dated 22.12.2025, passed by the Deputy State Tax Officer, is liable to be quashed for being illegal, without jurisdiction, and in gross violation of the Principles of Natural Justice? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the impugned order was passed without considering a reply to the Show Cause Notice and that a significant portion of the disputed tax had already been recovered. The petitioner also indicated a willingness to deposit 25% of the disputed tax. Respondent's Contention: The respondent's counsel was unable to confirm the petitioner's submission regarding the recovery of tax and suggested remitting the case back to the respondent for passing a fresh order.
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 22.12.2025 whereby the proposal in the Show Cause Notice in GST DRC-01 dated 25.09.2025 has been confirmed in absence of a Reply to the said Show Cause Notice.
The learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that already 52% of the disputed tax has been recovered post facto on 25.03.2026. In this regard, the learned counsel for the Petitioner makes an endorsement to that effect in the Court Bundle, which reads as under:- “The Petitioner is ready to pay 25% of the disputed tax but 52% of the tax amount already recovered on 25.03.2026 subject to verification.”
The learned Counsel for the State of Tamil Nadu is however unable to confirm the same. He would submit that the case can be remitted back to the Respondent to pass a fresh order in lieu of the Impugned Order. 2/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Recording the submission of the learned counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Counsel for the State of Tamil Nadu, the Impugned Order is quashed and the case is remitted back to the Respondent 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 25.09.2025 together with requisite documents to substantiate the case by treating the impugned Order dated 22.12.2025 as an addendum to the Show Cause Notice dated 25.09.2025. 6. Needless to state, if any amount has been recovered on 25.03.2026, no further pre-deposit is required for de novo adjudication. However, this will be subject to verification. 3/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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, after hearing the Petitioner. Subject to the Petitioner complying with the above stipulations, the attachment of the bank account of the Petitioner, if any, shall stand lifted.
It is made clear that bank attachment shall be lifted provided 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.
This Writ Petition stands disposed of with the above observations. No costs. Connected Writ Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. 21.07.2026 4/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Neutral Citation : Yes / No arb To: The Deputy State Tax Officer, Nagercoil-1 Assessment Circle, Kanniyakumari District. 5/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.SARAVANAN, J. arb W.P.(MD)No.20572 of 2026 21.07.2026 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.