Tvl. Siva Traders vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer - 2

Facts

The petitioner, Tvl. Siva Traders, represented by its Proprietor, filed a Writ Petition before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court challenging an order dated 08-12-2025, passed by the Deputy State Tax Officer-2, Tuticorin. This order was issued under Section 73(9) of the respective GST enactments for the Financial Year 2021-22. The petitioner contended that the impugned order was passed without a proper reply to the show cause notice. The respondent, represented by the Counsel for the State of Tamil Nadu, had no objection to the case being remitted for fresh adjudication.

Held

The Court quashed the impugned order dated 08-12-2025, subject to the petitioner depositing 25% of the disputed tax in cash within thirty days of receiving a copy of the order. The Court directed the petitioner 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 respondent was instructed to proceed to pass fresh orders on merits and in accordance with law, preferably within three months thereafter, after hearing the petitioner, if the petitioner complied with the stipulated conditions. Failure to comply would allow the respondent to proceed as if the Writ Petition was dismissed. The Court noted that the impugned order was passed without a reply to the show cause notice.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order passed by the respondent under Section 73(9) of the GST enactments for the Financial Year 2021-22 is liable to be quashed for being passed without a proper reply to the show cause notice and in violation of the Principles of Natural Justice? The petitioner argued that the impugned order was passed without addressing their reply to the show cause notice, thereby violating the principles of natural justice. They expressed readiness to deposit 25% of the disputed tax in cash as a condition for de novo adjudication. The respondent, represented by the Counsel for the State of TN, did not object to the case being remitted back to the respondent for passing a fresh order.