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. The impugned order, in FORM GST-DRC-07, dated 09.12.2025, pertains to the tax period 2021-22. This order was issued following a show cause notice dated 09.09.2025 and several reminders. The petitioner failed to file a reply or appear for personal hearings, leading to the ex-parte order. During the court hearing, the petitioner expressed willingness to pre-deposit 25% of the disputed tax.

Held

The Court quashed the impugned order dated 09.12.2025 passed by the Respondent. The case was remitted back to the Respondent for fresh adjudication. This decision was made conditional upon the petitioner depositing 25% of the disputed tax in cash from their electronic cash ledger within thirty days of receiving the order. The petitioner is also required to file a reply to the show cause notice dated 09.06.2025, along with supporting documents, treating the impugned order as an addendum. If these conditions are met, the Respondent shall pass a final order on merits expeditiously, preferably within three months of the reply and pre-deposit. The attachment of the petitioner's bank account, if any, will stand vacated upon compliance. The Court also clarified that if the petitioner fails to comply, the Respondent can proceed with recovery as if the writ petition was dismissed. The Respondent must 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, passed ex-parte, was illegal and violated natural justice principles due to the lack of proper opportunity to present their case. They expressed willingness to pre-deposit 25% of the disputed tax to facilitate a de novo adjudication. The Respondent, represented by the State Tax Officer, did not record any specific arguments against the petitioner's plea for a fresh adjudication, having been served notice and appearing through counsel.