Kulanthaisamy vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer

Facts

The petitioner, Kulanthaisamy, filed a writ petition before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court challenging an order dated 22.12.2025 passed by the Deputy State Tax Officer, Paramakudi Assessment Circle, under Section 73 of the TNGST Act, 2017, for the assessment year 2021-22. The impugned order was preceded by a show cause notice dated 22.08.2025, to which the petitioner did not file a reply or appear for personal hearings, despite reminders. The petitioner expressed willingness to pre-deposit 25% of the disputed tax.

Held

The Court decided to remit the case back to the respondent for de novo adjudication. This decision was based on the petitioner's willingness to pre-deposit 25% of the disputed tax. The Court directed the petitioner to deposit this amount in cash from their electronic cash register within thirty days of receiving the order. Concurrently, the petitioner must file a reply to the show cause notice dated 22.08.2025, along with supporting documents, treating the impugned order as an addendum. If these conditions are met, the respondent shall pass a final order on merits within three months. The attachment of the petitioner's bank account, if any, will be automatically vacated upon compliance. The Court clarified that the bank attachment would be lifted only if the 25% deposit is made and the petitioner has no other arrears for different tax periods. If the petitioner fails to comply, the respondent can proceed with recovery as if the writ petition was dismissed. The respondent must issue due notice before passing any further order.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order dated 22.12.2025, passed by the respondent under Section 73 of the TNGST Act, 2017, is liable to be quashed as cryptic, barred by limitation, non-speaking, illegal, arbitrary, and wholly without jurisdiction, necessitating a fresh assessment order after affording an opportunity of being heard? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the order was cryptic, barred by limitation, non-speaking, illegal, arbitrary, and without jurisdiction. The petitioner sought to quash the order and requested a fresh assessment after being heard. Revenue's arguments: The respondent, represented by the learned counsel for the State of Tamil Nadu, took notice. The judgment does not explicitly record any specific arguments made by the revenue other than their appearance and representation.