Uthandan Enterprises vs. The Deputy Commissioner (GST) (Appeal) (State Tax)
Original PDF →Facts
Uthandan Enterprises (the petitioner) filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 30.12.2025 passed by the Deputy State Tax Officer - 2 (the second respondent). This order was preceded by a show cause notice dated 02.09.2025, which had also called for a personal hearing. The petitioner did not avail the opportunity for personal hearing and consequently suffered the impugned order. The writ petition was filed on 17.07.2026, after the limitation period for filing an appeal under Section 107 of the respective GST enactments had expired. The petitioner expressed willingness to pre-deposit 25% of the disputed tax.
Held
The Court quashed the impugned order dated 30.12.2025 and remitted the case back to the second respondent for de novo adjudication. This decision was made subject to 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 dated 02.09.2025, along with supporting documents, treating the impugned order as an addendum. The second respondent was instructed to pass a fresh order on merits within three months of the petitioner's compliance. The Court noted that if the petitioner failed to comply with these stipulations, the respondents were at liberty to recover the tax as if the writ petition was dismissed. The first respondent was directed to give due notice to the petitioner before passing any final order.
Key Issues
1. Whether the impugned order dated 30.12.2025, passed by the second respondent, is liable to be quashed on the grounds of procedural illegality, specifically the denial of a proper opportunity for personal hearing, despite the petitioner's failure to avail the initial opportunity. (Question of law) Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that they were willing to pre-deposit 25% of the disputed tax as a condition for de novo adjudication, implying a request for a fresh opportunity to present their case. They relied on their endorsement in the court bundle stating their readiness to pay 25% of the disputed tax amount. Revenue's contention: The judgment records no specific argument from the respondents regarding the petitioner's failure to attend the personal hearing or the validity of the impugned order. However, the respondents were represented, and the court proceeded to pass an order.
Sections Cited
Section 107
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Before: and
M/s.P.Sudarkodi Natchiyar, learned Counsel for State of TN, takes notice for the respondents.
This Writ Petition is being disposed of 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 respondents.
In this Writ Petition, the petitioner has challenged the Impugned Order in FORM GST DRC-07 bearing Ref.No. 33AMEPN6039Q1ZK/2021-2022 dated 30.12.2025 of the second respondent, which was preceded by a Show Cause Notice in DRC 01 dated 02.09.2025, wherein the petitioner was also called upon 2/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis to appear for personal hearing. However, the petitioner had not taken advantage of the same and thus, suffered the impugned Order dated 30.12.2025. 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 17.07.2026. 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 ready to pay 25% of disputed tax amount.”
In view of the above, the impugned order dated 30.12.2025 stands quashed and the case is remitted back to the second respondent to pass a fresh order subject to the petitioner depositing 25% of the disputed tax in cash from the 3/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 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 DRC 01, dated 02.09.2025 together with requisite documents to substantiate the case by treating the impugned Order dated 30.12.2025 as an addendum to the Show Cause Notice dated 02.09.2025. 9. In case the petitioner complies with the above stipulations, the second 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 first respondent 4/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis shall 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 21.07.2026 Internet : Yes / No apd To 1. The Deputy Commissioner (GST) (Appeal) (State Tax), Combined Commercial Tax Offices, First Floor, Dr.MGS Bus Stand, Tirunelveli - 627 005. 2. The Deputy State Tax Officer - 2, Palayamkottai Assessment Circle, Tirunelveli District. 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.