Sss Crane Service vs. The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (GST)
Facts
The petitioner, SSS Crane Service, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 26.03.2024 passed by the Deputy State Tax Officer-2, Tuticorin-II Assessment Circle. This order confirmed a demand for the tax period April 2018-March 2019. The impugned order was preceded by notices in DRC 01 dated 24.08.2023 and three personal hearing notices. However, the petitioner did not respond to these notices, leading to the demand being confirmed. The petitioner sought to quash the order and requested reconsideration. The State counsel had no objection to the case being remitted back to the respondent for a fresh order.
Held
The Court quashed the impugned order dated 26.03.2024, subject to the petitioner depositing 50% 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 in DRC 01 dated 24.08.2023, treating the impugned order as an addendum to the Show Cause Notice. Upon compliance, the second respondent was directed to pass fresh orders on merits and in accordance with law, preferably within three months, after hearing the petitioner. The Court noted that if the petitioner failed to comply with these conditions, the respondents were at liberty to proceed against the petitioner as if the writ petition was dismissed. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.
Key Issues
1. Whether the impugned order dated 26.03.2024, passed by the Deputy State Tax Officer-2, confirming the demand for the tax period April 2018-March 2019, is liable to be quashed as illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to law, given the petitioner's failure to respond to the show cause notice and personal hearing notices? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the impugned order was passed without a proper reply to the show cause notice. They expressed readiness to deposit 50% of the disputed tax in cash as a condition for de novo adjudication, seeking quashing of the order and justice. Revenue's contention: The learned Counsel for the State of Tamil Nadu had no objection to remitting the case back to the second respondent to pass a fresh order in lieu of the impugned order.
Sections Cited
DRC 01
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 30.06.2026 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN and W.M.P.(MD) Nos.13444 & 13445 of 2026 SSS Crane Service rep. by its Proprietorship Gladison. ... Petitioner Vs
The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (GST), 4th Floor, Commercial Taxes Building, Dr.S.G.K,S. Thangaraj Salai, Madurai- 625020 or Camp Office at 1st Floor Commercial Taxes Building, South High Ground Road, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli – 627 002. 2. The Deputy State Tax Officer-2, Office of the State Tax Officer Tuticorin-II Assessment Circle, Tuticorin-II, No.282A, Commercial Taxes Building, North Beach Road Thoothukudi – 628 001. ... Respondents 1/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the order passed in Order No. ZD3303241698662 / 2018-2019 / dated 26.03.2024 GSTIN 33AVOPG5501B1Z5 in respect of the periods from April 2018-March 2019 passed by the 2nd respondent/
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.