M/S.Kumkee Packaging vs. The State Tax Officer

Facts

The petitioner, M/s.Kumkee Packaging, represented by its Proprietor S.Gopalakrishnan, filed a writ petition challenging an order passed by the Respondent, the State Tax Officer, Kamarajar Salai Assessment Circle, Madurai, dated 29.12.2025 (Ref.No.GSTIN 33CSCPG0039B1ZM/2021-22). This order was preceded by a show cause notice dated 24.09.2025 and several reminders. The petitioner failed to file a reply or appear for personal hearings, leading to the impugned order. During the hearing, the petitioner expressed willingness to pre-deposit 10% of the disputed tax.

Held

The Court quashed the impugned order dated 29.12.2025 passed by the Respondent. The case was remitted back to the Respondent for passing a fresh order, subject to the petitioner depositing 10% 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 24.09.2025, along with supporting documents, within the same period, treating the impugned order as an addendum to the show cause notice. If these conditions were met, the Respondent was to pass a final order on merits expeditiously, preferably within three months. The attachment of the petitioner's bank account, if any, was to be automatically vacated upon compliance. The Court clarified that if the petitioner failed to comply, the Respondent could proceed to recover the tax as if the writ petition was dismissed. The Respondent was also mandated to issue due notice before passing any further order.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order passed by the Respondent is liable to be quashed on grounds of illegality, lack of jurisdiction, and violation of the Principles of Natural Justice, as contended by the Petitioner? The Petitioner argued that the impugned order should be set aside due to procedural irregularities and a violation of natural justice principles, as they were not afforded a proper opportunity to present their case. The Respondent, represented by the State Tax Officer, did not explicitly record any arguments in opposition to the petitioner's plea for a de novo adjudication, but the court's order implies the respondent's consent to the disposal of the writ petition on admission. The core issue revolves around whether the petitioner's failure to respond to the show cause notice and attend hearings warrants the quashing of the order, or if a procedural remedy with conditions is appropriate.