Global Stones vs. The Assistant Commissioner (State Taxes)

Facts

The petitioner, Global Stones, filed a writ petition before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court challenging an order dated 10.06.2026 passed by the Assistant Commissioner (State Taxes), Madurai Rural (East) Assessment Circle. This order was for the financial year 2022-23. The petitioner contended that the impugned order was passed despite them having filed a detailed reply to the show cause notice dated 13.05.2025. However, the impugned order erroneously recorded that no reply was filed. The petitioner sought to quash the order as illegal, arbitrary, and violative of natural justice.

Held

The Court held that the impugned order dated 10.06.2026 was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. The Court noted that the petitioner had indeed filed a reply to the show cause notice dated 13.05.2025, as evidenced by the reply in Form GST DRC-06 dated 12.06.2025. The impugned order's statement that no reply was filed was found to be incorrect. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned order and remitted the matter back to the respondent. The respondent was directed to pass a de novo order after considering any additional reply the petitioner might wish to file, treating the impugned order as an addendum to the show cause notice. The respondent was also instructed to issue due notice to the petitioner before passing a final order on merits and in accordance with law, preferably within three months of the petitioner's reply.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order dated 10.06.2026, passed by the respondent, is liable to be quashed for erroneously recording that the petitioner failed to file a reply to the show cause notice dated 13.05.2025, when in fact a reply was filed on 12.06.2025, thereby violating principles of natural justice? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that they had submitted a detailed reply in Form GST DRC-06 on 12.06.2025 to the show cause notice in Form GST DRC-01 dated 13.05.2025. The impugned order's assertion that no reply was filed is factually incorrect and violates the principles of natural justice. Respondent's Contention: The respondent, represented by the counsel for the State of Tamil Nadu, did not record any specific arguments against the petitioner's claim regarding the filing of the reply.