M/S.Gk Agency vs. State Tax Officer

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. GK Agency, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated May 17, 2025, passed by the State Tax Officer, Ramanathapuram Assessment Circle. This order was issued after a show cause notice dated March 19, 2025, for the assessment year 2018-19. The petitioner was given 30 days to file objections. Reminders were sent on August 23, 2024, September 10, 2024, and September 23, 2024, calling for a reply and personal hearing. The petitioner failed to file any reply or appear for the hearings, leading to the ex parte impugned order. The petitioner expressed willingness to pre-deposit 25% of the disputed tax.

Held

The Court quashed the impugned order dated May 17, 2025, and remitted the case back to the respondent for fresh adjudication. This decision was made subject to the petitioner depositing 25% of the disputed tax in cash from their electronic cash register within thirty days of receiving a copy of the order. The petitioner was also directed to file a reply to the show cause notice dated March 19, 2025, along with supporting documents, treating the impugned order as an addendum to the show cause notice. If these conditions were met, the respondent was to pass a final order on merits within three months of the reply and pre-deposit. The attachment of the petitioner's bank account, if any, would stand vacated upon compliance. The Court clarified that if the petitioner failed to comply with any stipulation, the respondent could proceed to recover the tax as if the writ petition was dismissed. The respondent was also directed to issue due notice before passing any further order.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned ex parte order passed by the Respondent under the GST law, without considering the petitioner's objections, is sustainable? The Petitioner argued that the impugned order was passed ex parte and sought an opportunity to present their case. They expressed willingness to pre-deposit 25% of the disputed tax as a condition for de novo adjudication. The Petitioner relied on their endorsement in the court bundle stating compliance with the 25% deposit condition. The Respondent, represented by the counsel for the State of Tamil Nadu, did not record any specific arguments against the petitioner's plea for a fresh adjudication, having consented to the disposal of the writ petition at the admission stage.