Tvl. V.A.P. Yarn Agency vs. The State Tax Officer

Facts

The petitioner, Tvl.V.A.P.Yarn Agency, filed four writ petitions challenging orders dated 19.02.2026 and 26.02.2026 passed by the State Tax Officer, Karur. These orders were issued pursuant to assessment orders dated 31.08.2023, 16.08.2024, 06.02.2024, and 20.02.2025, passed under Section 73 of the GST enactments for the tax periods 2018-19, 2019-20, and 2020-21. Previously, in writ petitions W.P(MD) Nos.23341 to 23344 of 2025, this Court had, by an order dated 28.08.2025, remitted the cases back to the respondent for fresh orders, conditional upon the petitioner depositing 25% of the disputed tax amount. The petitioner failed to make this deposit, leading to the impugned orders. The petitioner sought a fresh opportunity to comply with the court's earlier order.

Held

The Court, taking into consideration the circumstances narrated by the learned counsel for the petitioner, decided to grant one last opportunity to the petitioner to deposit 25% of the disputed tax within 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Court noted that the petitioner had previously failed to comply with a similar direction in an earlier writ petition, which led to the impugned orders. The Court reasoned that granting this final opportunity would allow the cases to be decided on merits. The Court directed the respondent to pass fresh orders in lieu of the impugned orders and the preceding assessment orders, subject to the petitioner making the stipulated deposit. The petitioner was also directed to file a reply to the notices that preceded the impugned orders, treating the assessment orders as an addendum. If the petitioner complies, the respondent is to pass fresh orders expeditiously, preferably within three months, after hearing the petitioner. Failure to comply with these conditions would allow the respondent to proceed as if the writ petitions were dismissed in limine.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Court should grant a further opportunity to the petitioner to comply with the previous order of this Court dated 28.08.2025, which required a deposit of 25% of the disputed tax amount, considering the petitioner's stated personal inconvenience and age. The petitioner argued that due to personal inconvenience and age, they were unable to comply with the prior order of this Court dated 28.08.2025. They pleaded for a sympathetic view and requested the Court to remit the case back to the respondent for a fresh order on merits, subject to any reasonable terms fixed by the Court. The respondent, the State Tax Officer, did not record any specific arguments in opposition to the petitioner's plea for a further opportunity, other than noting that the impugned orders were passed in the absence of the pre-deposit by the petitioner.