M/S.Commander Wirenetting vs. The Joint Commissioner (GST Appeals) (State Tax)

Facts

The petitioner, M/s.Commander Wirenetting, filed a writ petition before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court challenging an order in Form GST DRC-07 dated 13.12.2025, passed by the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Nanguneri Circle. This order was preceded by a Show Cause Notice dated 19.08.2025, for which the petitioner did not avail the opportunity of a personal hearing. The writ petition was filed on 07.06.2026, after the limitation period for filing an appeal under Section 107 of the GST enactments had expired. The petitioner expressed willingness to pre-deposit 25% of the disputed tax.

Held

The Court decided to remit the case back to the Respondent (Deputy Commercial Tax Officer) 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 19.08.2025, along with supporting documents, treating the impugned order dated 13.12.2025 as an addendum to the Show Cause Notice. If these conditions were met, the Respondent was to pass a final order on merits within three months. The attachment of the petitioner's bank account was to be automatically vacated upon compliance. The Court made it clear that if the petitioner failed to comply with any stipulation, the respondents could proceed to recover the tax as if the writ petition was dismissed. The ratio decidendi is that in cases where the statutory appeal period has expired, but the petitioner demonstrates willingness to comply with certain conditions, including pre-deposit, the High Court may, in its discretion, remit the matter for fresh adjudication to ensure principles of natural justice are upheld and to allow the petitioner to present their case.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Court should entertain a writ petition when the statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the GST enactments is available but the limitation period has expired? 2. Whether the impugned order passed by the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer is liable to be quashed for illegality, lack of jurisdiction, and violation of principles of natural justice? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the impugned order was illegal, without jurisdiction, and in gross violation of the principles of natural justice. While not explicitly stated, the filing of the writ petition implies a challenge to the validity of the order and the process followed. The petitioner also agreed to pre-deposit 25% of the disputed tax as a condition for de novo adjudication. Revenue's arguments: The judgment records no specific arguments from the respondents. However, the respondents were represented by counsel for the State of Tamil Nadu.