Tvl. J.G. Urecone vs. The State Tax Officer
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Tvl.J.G.Urecone, filed a writ petition challenging a summary order (DRC 07) dated March 25, 2025, issued by the respondent, The State Tax Officer. This order, received by the petitioner on March 27, 2025, demanded payment of Rs. 54,69,772/- within 48 hours for the tax period of December 2023 (financial year 2023-2024). The notice threatened action under Section 79 of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, if the amount was not paid. The impugned notice was issued pursuant to an earlier order passed by the respondent on November 8, 2024. The petitioner had previously challenged the November 8, 2024 order in W.P.(MD) No.8675 of 2025, where a Co-ordinate Bench had directed the petitioner to file an appeal under Section 107 of the Act and maintained status quo pending the appeal.
Held
The Court held that there was no cause of action for the petitioner to challenge the impugned notice. The reasoning was that the impugned notice dated March 25, 2025, was issued prior to the High Court's order dated March 27, 2025, in W.P.(MD) No.8675 of 2025. In the previous writ petition, the Court had directed the petitioner to file an appeal under Section 107 of the Act and had also granted a status quo order pending the disposal of that appeal. Since the petitioner was already enjoying the protection of the status quo order granted by the Court, the subsequent notice demanding payment, which was issued before the status quo order was in effect, could not be sustained. The respondent also conceded that the petitioner was protected by the status quo order. Therefore, the Court found no merit in the present writ petition. The operative direction was to dismiss the writ petition.
Key Issues
1. Whether the impugned summary order dated March 25, 2025, is legally sustainable given that it was issued prior to a High Court order dated March 27, 2025, which granted the petitioner the benefit of status quo in a previous writ petition concerning an earlier order dated November 8, 2024. Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the impugned notice, issued on March 25, 2025, demanding payment of Rs. 54,69,772/-, is illegal because it was issued after a Co-ordinate Bench of the same High Court, in W.P.(MD) No.8675 of 2025 on March 27, 2025, had directed the petitioner to avail the remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the Act and maintained status quo pending the appeal. The petitioner contended that they are protected by this status quo order. Respondent's contention: The respondent, through the learned Additional Government Pleader, fairly submitted that the impugned notice was indeed issued prior to the High Court's order dated March 27, 2025, and acknowledged that the petitioner is protected by the status quo granted by the Court.
Sections Cited
Section 79, Section 107
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Before: and
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner – Establishment questioning the notice dated 25.03.2025 requiring them to pay an amount of Rs.54,69,772/- within 48 hours. Further, the impugned notice also informed that in case if the petitioner fails to pay the said amount, action will be initiated under Section 79 of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (in short, “the Act, 2017”).
A perusal of the impugned notice discloses that the same was issued pursuant to the order passed by the respondent in DRC No.7 in reference No.ZD331124049704M, dated 08.11.2024. Thus, it is evident that the impugned notice is requiring the petitioner to pay the due amount in terms of the said order dated 08.11.2024. 3. From the perusal of the materials placed on record and as submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the order dated ____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2024 was put to challenge before this Court by the very same petitioner in W.P.(MD) No.8675 of 2025 and a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, by an order dated 27.03.2025, relegated the petitioner to avail the remedy of appeal provided under Section 107 of the Act, 2017, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order and pending disposal of the said appeal, directed for maintenance of status quo. The benefit of the said order is available to the petitioner. The impugned notice was issued on 25.03.2025 i.e., prior to the passing of the order by this Court on 27.03.2025 in W.P.(MD) No.8675 of 2025. Once the petitioner has the protection of the order of status quo passed by this Court in W.P.(MD) No.8675 of 2025, this Court is unable to find any cause of action for the petitioner to challenge the impugned notice.
Further, Mr.J.K.Jayaseelan, learned Additional Government Pleader, appearing for the respondent also fairly submitted that the impugned notice was issued prior to the date of the order passed by this Court and the petitioner is having the protection of status quo as granted by this Court by order dated 27.03.2025. 5. In the circumstances, this Court does not find any cause of ____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis action for the petitioner nor any merit in the present writ petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
2025 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No krk To: The State Tax Officer, Nagercoil (Rural) Assessment Circle, Nagercoil, Kanniyakumari. ____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR, J. krk and W.M.P.(MD) Nos.7818 & 7820 of 2025 17.04.2025 ____________ 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.