Kumarasamy Thenmozhi vs. The Principal Commissioner

Facts

The petitioner, Kumarasamy Thenmozhi, filed a writ petition before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court challenging an order passed by the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer (second respondent) in FORM GST DRC-07, dated 29.10.2025. This order pertained to the Financial Year 2021-22. The petitioner contended that the impugned order was passed without any reply being filed to the show cause notice that preceded it. The learned counsel for the petitioner undertook to deposit 50% of the disputed tax in cash as a condition for de novo adjudication. The counsel for the State of Tamil Nadu had no objection to the case being remitted back to the second respondent for passing a fresh order.

Held

The Court quashed the impugned order dated 29.10.2025, subject to the petitioner depositing 50% of the disputed tax in cash within thirty days of receiving a copy of the order. The petitioner was also directed to file a reply to the notice that preceded the impugned order, treating the impugned order as an addendum to the show cause notice. Upon compliance, the second respondent was directed to pass fresh orders on merits and in accordance with law, preferably within three months after hearing the petitioner. The Court noted that if the petitioner failed to comply with any of the conditions, the second respondent was at liberty to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law as if the writ petition was dismissed. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided. The ratio decidendi is that an order passed without considering the assessee's reply to a show cause notice is liable to be set aside, and a de novo adjudication may be permitted upon fulfillment of certain conditions, such as a partial deposit of the disputed tax.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order passed by the second respondent, the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, in FORM GST DRC-07 dated 29.10.2025, for the Financial Year 2021-22, is liable to be quashed as illegal, given that it was passed without addressing the petitioner's reply to the show cause notice. Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the impugned order was passed without considering their reply to the show cause notice, rendering it illegal. They proposed to deposit 50% of the disputed tax in cash as a pre-condition for a fresh adjudication by the authority. Revenue's Contention: The State's counsel for the respondents did not object to the case being remitted back to the second respondent for passing a fresh order.