Dimora vs. The Assistant Commissioner(State Tax)
Original PDF →Facts
These writ petitions were filed by Tvl. Dimora, represented by its Managing Partner, challenging orders passed by the State Tax authorities. The petitioner sought to quash assessment orders dated 25.04.2024 (for the period 2018-2019) and 14.08.2024 (for the period 2019-2020), and consequential Form GST DRC-07 notices. The petitioner also sought directions to defreeze its bank accounts held with ICICI Bank and State Bank of India. The impugned orders were preceded by notices to which the petitioner had not responded. The petitioner's registration was cancelled on 11.10.2019, yet an order was passed on 14.08.2024.
Held
The Court held that while the petitioner had not responded to the notices preceding the assessment orders, it was inclined to provide relief due to the delay in proceedings and the petitioner's non-participation. The Court quashed the impugned orders subject to the petitioner depositing 25% of the disputed tax in cash. Upon such deposit, the respondents were directed to pass fresh orders on merits and in accordance with law. The Court noted that the petitioner could take advantage of any recent orders passed concerning Section 168A of the respective Goods and Services Tax Acts. The petitioner's bank accounts would be defreezed subject to the appropriation of 25% of the disputed tax. The Court found that the order dated 28.02.2024, relied upon by the petitioner, was not in favour of the petitioner as the impugned orders were passed prior to the communication dated 03.10.2024, which followed that order. The issue regarding the validity of the Section 168A notification was not definitively decided but left open for the petitioner to leverage any favorable recent orders.
Key Issues
1. Whether the assessment orders and consequential demand notices issued by the respondents are liable to be quashed as arbitrary, without jurisdiction, and void, particularly in light of the petitioner's contention that the proceedings are based on a notification under Section 168A of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, which has been quashed by this Court's Principal Bench? (Question of law) Petitioner's arguments: - The proceedings are unsustainable as they are based on a notification under Section 168A of the Tamil Nadu GST Act, 2017, which has been quashed by the Principal Bench of this Court. - In W.P.No.16203 of 2024, the registration was cancelled on 11.10.2019, but the order was passed much later on 14.08.2024. - The petitioner relied on an order passed by this Court in W.P.No.4544 of 2024, dated 28.02.2024, concerning modifications to notices issued under Section 169 of the Tamil Nadu GST Act, 2017. Revenue's arguments: - The judgment records no specific arguments from the revenue regarding the validity of the orders or the applicability of Section 168A.
Sections Cited
Section 168A, Section 169
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Before: and
These writ petitions are disposed of at the time of admission after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents 1 to 3 and the learned counsel for the respondents 4 to 6. 2. It is noticed that the petitioner has suffered assessment orders, dated 25.04.2024 and 14.08.2024. The impugned orders were preceded by notices, to which the petitioner has not replied. 5/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)Nos.16202 and 16203 of 2025
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the proceedings are based on the notification issued under Section 168A of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, which has been stands quashed by the Principal Bench of this Court. Therefore, the demand is un-sustainable. That apart, it is submitted that, in respect of the petitioner in W.P.No.16203 of 2024, the registration was cancelled as early as on 11.10.2019. However, the orders were passed on 14.08.2024. The learned counsel for the petitioner also drew attention to the order passed by this Court in W.P(MD)No.4544 of 2024, dated 28.02.2024, wherein, certain modifications were suggested to the communication of notices issued under Section 169 of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. 4. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents 1 to 3 and the learned counsel for the respondents 4 to 6. 5. This Court is of the view that the order passed by this Court, dated 28.02.2024 pursuant to which communication, dated 03.10.2024 was issued, is not in favour of the petitioner, as the impugned orders, dated 14.08.2024 6/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)Nos.16202 and 16203 of 2025 and 25.04.2024 were passed long before the communication issued on 03.10.2024
Be that as it may, whenever there has been delay and the assessee has not participated in the proceedings that preceded the assessment order, this Court is inclined to rescue the persons like the petitioner by permitting them to pay the disputed tax. On payment of such 25% of the disputed tax, the order shall stand quashed with liberty to the parties to file a reply with further direction to the authorities to pass fresh orders on merits and in accordance with law.
I see no reasons to take a different view in the present case. Therefore, these writ petitions are disposed of by quashing the impugned orders subject to the petitioner deposits 25% of the disputed tax in cash. The respondents shall thereafter pass fresh order on merits and in accordance with law. It is made clear that once the petitioner makes a pre-deposit as has been ordered above, which was consistently followed by this Court, respondents shall pass fresh orders on merits and in accordance with law. It is open to the petitioner to take advantage of the recent order that is said to have been passed in the context of Section 168A of the respective Goods and Services 7/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)Nos.16202 and 16203 of 2025 Tax Acts. The petitioner's bank accounts shall be de-freezed subject to appropriation of 25% of the disputed tax. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
2025 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No sn To 1.The Assistant Commissioner (State Tax), Woraiyur Assessment Circle, C/2, 2nd Floor, 2nd Cross, Thillai Nagar (West), Trichy 620 018. 2.The Deputy State Tax Officer -II, Office of the Commercial Tax Department, Woraiyur Assessment Circle, C2, 2nd Floor, 2nd Cross, Thillai Nagar (West), Tiruchirappalli 620 018. 3.The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Commercial Tax Department, Woraiyur Assessment Circle, C2, 2nd Floor, 2nd Cross, Thillai Nagar (West), Tiruchirappalli 620 018. 8/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)Nos.16202 and 16203 of 2025 4.The Branch Manager, ICICI Bank Limited, Thuraiyur Branch, 199-2a, Trichy Road Madhurapuri, Thuraiyur 621 010 5.The Branch Manager, ICICI Bank Limited, Neelankarai Branch, Plot No. 20,21, Rajasthan Nagar ECR, Neelkarai, Chennai 600041. 6.The Branch Manager, ICICI Bank Limited, Bangalore – NR Road, 100-1, Narasimha Raja Road, Opp. Town Hall, Bangalore 560 002 7.The Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Thillai Nagar, First Main Road, Trichy. C.SARAVANAN, J. 9/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)Nos.16202 and 16203 of 2025
sn
W.P(MD)Nos.16202 and 16203 of 2025
2025 10/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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.