Tvl. Subha Handlooms vs. State Tax Officer / Commercial Tax Officer
Facts
The petitioner, Tvl.Subha Handlooms, represented by its Partner Mr.S.Selvakumar, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 30.12.2025 passed by the respondent, the State Tax Officer/Commercial Tax Officer, Karur, under Section 73 of the TNGST Act, 2017, for the financial year 2021-2022. The petitioner contended that the impugned order was passed without providing a reply to the show cause notice. The petitioner undertook to deposit 10% of the disputed tax demand as a condition for fresh adjudication. The respondent's counsel had no objection to remitting the case back for fresh adjudication.
Held
The Court held that the impugned order dated 30.12.2025, passed by the respondent under Section 73 of the TNGST Act, 2017, for the financial year 2021-2022, was quashed. This decision was based on the petitioner's submission that the order was passed without a proper reply to the show cause notice. The Court directed the petitioner to deposit 10% of the disputed tax in cash within thirty days of receiving the order. The petitioner was also required to file a reply to the notice preceding the impugned order, treating the impugned order as an addendum to the show cause notice. Upon compliance, the attachment of the petitioner's bank account would be lifted, and the respondent would proceed to pass fresh orders on merits after hearing the petitioner, preferably within three months. Failure to comply would allow the respondent to proceed as if the writ petition was dismissed.
Key Issues
1. Whether the impugned order passed under Section 73 of the TNGST Act, 2017, for the financial year 2021-2022 is liable to be quashed as illegal and not in accordance with law, due to the alleged failure to consider the petitioner's reply to the show cause notice? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the impugned order was passed without providing any reply to the show cause notice that preceded it, rendering the order illegal and not in accordance with law. The petitioner offered to deposit 10% of the disputed tax demand in cash as a condition for de novo adjudication. Respondent's Contention: The respondent's counsel had no objection to remitting the case back to the respondent to pass a fresh order in lieu of the impugned order.
Sections Cited
Section 73
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
W.P.(MD) No.19457 of 2026 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 10.07.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN W.P(MD) No.19457 of 2026 and W.M.P(MD) Nos.14398, 14399 and 14400 of 2026 Tvl.Subha Handlooms, represented by its Partner Mr.S.Selvakumar
... Petitioner Vs. State Tax Officer / Commercial Tax Officer, Karur - 3 Assessment Circle, RDO Campus, North Pradhakshanam Road, Karur - 639 001. ...Respondent 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 on the file of the respondent in Order in Reference No. ZD331225455290P passed under Section 73 of the TNGST Act, 2017 for the period 2021-2022 dated 30.12.2025 passed by the respondent and quash the same as illegal and not in accordance with law and consequently direct the respondent to conduct fresh assessment proceedings after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner in accordance with law.
For Petitioner : Mr.A.Mohamedhaneef For Respondent : Mr.R.Parthiban Counsel for the State
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.