American Agencies vs. The Commissioner Of Taxes
Facts
The petitioner, American Agencies, filed a Writ Petition before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court challenging an order dated 26.12.2023, passed by the Fourth Respondent (State Tax Officer) under the GST enactments for the Financial Year 2017-18. The petitioner contended that the impugned order was passed without addressing the reply to the show cause notice. The petitioner proposed to deposit 50% of the disputed tax in cash as a condition for de novo adjudication. The counsel for the State had no objection to remitting the case back to the Fourth Respondent for a fresh order.
Held
The Court quashed the impugned order dated 26.12.2023 passed by the Fourth Respondent. This decision was based on the agreement of both parties to allow for a fresh adjudication. The Court directed the petitioner to deposit 50% of the disputed tax in cash within thirty days of receiving the order. Furthermore, the petitioner was instructed to file a reply to the notice that preceded the impugned assessment order, treating the impugned order as an addendum to the Show Cause Notice. The respondents were directed to proceed with passing fresh orders on merits and in accordance with law, after hearing the petitioner, preferably within three months. The Court also stipulated that if the petitioner failed to comply with these conditions, the respondents would be at liberty to proceed as if the Writ Petition was dismissed.
Key Issues
1. Whether the impugned order passed by the Fourth Respondent under the GST enactments for the Financial Year 2017-18 is void and illegal, warranting quashing, in light of the petitioner's submission that it was passed without a 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 a condition for de novo adjudication by depositing 50% of the disputed tax. Revenue's contention: The counsel for the State had no objection to the case being remitted back to the Fourth Respondent for passing a fresh order.
Sections Cited
None explicitly mentioned in the provided text, other than general reference to "respective GST enactments, 2017".
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 10.07.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN W.P(MD) No.19420 of 2026 and W.M.P(MD) Nos.14386 and 14388 of 2026 American Agencies represented by its Proprietor Jannathgani
... Petitioner Vs. 1.The Commissioner of Taxes, Office of the Commissioner of Tax, Trichy District 627 002. 2.The Deputy Commissioner (GST), Office of the Commissioner of Tax, Trichy District. 3.The Assistant Commissioner, Office of the Assistant Commissioner, Kumbakonam Town, Thanjavur District. 4.The State Tax Officer, Office of the State Tax Officer, Assessment Circle, Kumbakonam Town, Thanjavur District.
...Respondents 1/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records, pertaining to the impugned order passed by the Fourth Respondent in GSTIN 33AAEPJ0715F1ZD / 2017 - 2018 dated 26.12.2023, and QUASH the same as void and illegal and consequently directing the Fourth Respo
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Madras High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.