Tvl.Suvrat Suri Traders vs. The Proper Officer
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Tvl. Suvrat Suri Traders, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 24.11.2025 passed by the Assistant Commissioner (ST), the first respondent. This order confirmed a proposal from a Show Cause Notice dated 27.06.2025, stating the petitioner failed to provide supporting documents for their defense. The writ petition was filed on 09.09.2026, after the limitation period for filing an appeal under Section 107 of the GST enactments had expired. The petitioner offered to pre-deposit 25% of the disputed tax demand for de novo adjudication. The revenue was unable to confirm if any recovery had already been made.
Held
The Court quashed the impugned order dated 24.11.2025 and remitted the case back to the first respondent for fresh adjudication. This decision was based on the petitioner's willingness to deposit 25% of the disputed tax, less any amount already recovered, within thirty days. The petitioner was also directed to file a reply to the Show Cause Notice dated 27.06.2025 along with requisite documents, treating the impugned order as an addendum. The first respondent was instructed to pass a final order on merits within three months of the petitioner's compliance. Upon compliance, the attachment of the petitioner's bank account would be automatically vacated. The court clarified that the bank attachment would be lifted subject to the deposit and the petitioner not being in arrears for other tax periods. Attachment of property was to be vacated subject to the final outcome. If the petitioner failed to comply, the revenue was at liberty to proceed as if the writ petition was dismissed. The court noted that the limitation period for appeal had expired.
Key Issues
1. Whether the impugned order dated 24.11.2025, passed by the first respondent, is liable to be quashed as illegal, without jurisdiction, and in violation of the principles of natural justice? The petitioner argued that the order was passed without affording them a proper opportunity to present their defense and that the principles of natural justice were violated. They contended that the failure to produce documents was due to circumstances that warranted a fresh opportunity. The revenue, represented by the Special Government Pleader, did not explicitly argue against the quashing of the order but was unable to confirm recovery details. The court considered the petitioner's willingness to pre-deposit 25% of the disputed tax as a condition for re-adjudication.
Sections Cited
Section 107
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Before: and
Mr.R.Parthiban, learned Special Government Pleader, takes notice for the first respondent.
This Writ Petition is taken up for final hearing at the time of admission with the consent of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Government Pleader for the first respondent.
The petitioner is before this Court challenging the impugned order dated 24.11.2025 passed by the first respondent, whereby the proposal contained in the Show Cause Notice in Form GST DRC-01 dated 27.06.2025 was confirmed on the ground that the petitioner had 2/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis failed to produce supporting documents to substantiate the defence raised in the reply dated 23.07.2025. 4. It is noticed that the limitation for filing an appeal under Section 107 of the respective GST enactments, 2017 against the Impugned Order has already expired. The present Writ Petition has been filed only on 09.09.2026. 5. At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is willing to pre-deposit 25% of the disputed tax as a condition for de novo adjudication, subject to verification of the amount already recovered.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has also made an endorsement to that effect in the Court Bundle, which is extracted hereunder:- “The petitioner agrees to pay 25% of tax demand.”
The learned Special Government Pleader is, however, unable to 3/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis confirm whether any recovery has been made.
In view of the above, I am inclined to quash the impugned order and remit the case back to the first respondent to pass a fresh order subject to the petitioner depositing 25% of the disputed tax, less the amount, if any, already deposited, subject to verification, in cash from the petitioner's Electronic Cash Register within a period of thirty (30) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Within such time, the petitioner shall also file a reply to the Show Cause Notice in Form GST DRC-01 dated 27.06.2025 together with requisite documents to substantiate the case by treating the Impugned Order dated 24.11.2025 as an addendum to the Show Cause Notice dated 27.06.2025. 10. In case the petitioner complies with the above stipulations, the first respondent shall proceed to pass a final order on merits and in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of three (3) months of such reply / pre-deposit. Subject to the 4/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Petitioner complying with the above stipulations, the attachment of the bank account of the Petitioner shall also stand automatically vacated.
It is made clear that bank attachment shall be lifted subject to the deposit of 25% of the disputed tax as ordered above and the Petitioner not being in arrears of any other amount for any other tax period barring the amount demanded under the impugned Order.
As far as the attachment of the petitioner’s property is concerned, the same shall be vacated, subject to the final outcome of the proceedings arising from the impugned order.
In case the petitioner fails to comply with any of the stipulations, the first respondent is at liberty to proceed against the petitioner to recover the tax in accordance with law as if this Writ Petition was dismissed in limine today.
Needless to state, before passing any such order, the first respondent shall give due notice to the petitioner. 5/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
This Writ Petition stands disposed of, with the above observations. No costs. Consequently, connected Writ Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
2026 sji NCC : Yes/No TO 1.The Proper Officer, Proceedings of The Assistant Commissioner (ST) (FAC) Thiruparankundram Assessment Circle, Madurai – 20. 2.The Tamilnadu Mercantile Bank Ltd., Thirunagar Branch, Madurai. 6/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.SARAVANAN, J. sji ORDER IN WP(MD) No.26774 of 2026 Date : 18.09.2026 7/7 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.