Tvl.Kanagammal Modern Rice Mill vs. The State Tax Officer
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Tvl.Kanagammal Modern Rice Mill, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 08.12.2025 passed by the respondent, the State Tax Officer, Tenkasi Assessment Circle. This order confirmed a proposal in a show cause notice dated 12.08.2025 for the tax period 2021-22, allegedly due to the absence of a reply from the petitioner. The petitioner stated that they had filed a belated appeal on 02.06.2026, which was rejected on 15.06.2026. The petitioner claimed to have pre-deposited 10% of the disputed tax at the time of filing the appeal. The petitioner's case was that they are engaged in the supply of exempted goods, have not availed input tax credits, and their entire turnover is exempted under Section 7 read with relevant notifications.
Held
The Court held that the impugned order dated 08.12.2025 should be set aside and the case remitted back to the respondent for passing a fresh order. This decision was made subject to the petitioner depositing 10% 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 12.08.2025, along with supporting documents, within the same period, treating the impugned order as an addendum to the show cause notice. Any amount already recovered or paid by the petitioner would be adjusted towards this pre-deposit, subject to verification. The respondent was directed to pass a final order on merits and in accordance with law expeditiously, preferably within three months of the reply and pre-deposit, provided the petitioner complied with the stipulations. The attachment of the petitioner's bank account, if any, would stand automatically vacated upon compliance. The respondent was also directed to issue due notice before passing any further order. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.
Key Issues
1. Whether the impugned order dated 08.12.2025, passed by the respondent under Section 73 of the TNGST Act, 2017, is cryptic, nonspeaking, illegal, arbitrary, and without jurisdiction, warranting quashing and a fresh assessment order after affording an opportunity of being heard? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the impugned order was passed without proper consideration of their case, was cryptic and nonspeaking, and therefore illegal and arbitrary. They sought to quash the order and obtain a fresh assessment after being heard. The petitioner also highlighted their claim of dealing in exempted goods and not availing input tax credit, with their turnover being exempted under Section 7 read with relevant notifications. Respondent's Arguments: The respondent's arguments are not explicitly recorded in the judgment, beyond their representation by the Government Advocate (Tax).
Sections Cited
Section 73
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Before: and
By consent this writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the time of admission after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Tax) for the respondent. 2.The petitioner is before this Court against the impugned order dated 08.12.2025, whereby the proposal in show cause notice in DRC 01 dated 12.08.2025 has been confirmed for the tax period 2021-22 in the absence of a reply to the said show cause notice. 3.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that aggrieved by the aforesaid order impugned, the petitioner had filed an appeal belatedly on 02.06.2026 which came to be rejected on 15.06.2026. It is further submitted that the petitioner has already pre deposited 10% of the disputed tax at the time of filing of the appeal against the impugned order on 02.06.2026 before the appellate authority. However, copy of the order passed by the appellate authority on 15.06.2026 is not available in the Court bundle. Therefore, there is no finality as to whether the petitioner had indeed pre deposited 10% of the disputed tax or not. 2/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Be that as it may, the case of the petitioner appears to be that the petitioner is engaged in supply of exempted goods and that the petitioner has also not availed any input tax credits and that the entire turnover is exempted under Section 7 r/w the relevant notification of the respective GST enactment. 5.Having considered submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Tax) for the respondent, I am inclined to remit the case back to the respondent to pass a fresh order in lieu of the impugned order dated 08.12.2025, subject to petitioner depositing 10% of the disputed tax 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. 6.Within such time, the petitioner shall also file a reply to the show cause notice dated 12.08.2025 together with requisite documents to substantiate the case by treating the impugned order dated 08.12.2025 as an addendum to the show cause notice dated 12.08.2025. 3/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Needless to state, any amount recovered from the petitioner/paid by the petitioner shall be adjusted towards the aforesaid pre-deposit of 10% as ordered above. This will be however subject to verification by the respondent. 8.In case, the petitioner complies with the above stipulations, the 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 months of such reply/pre-deposit. Subject to the petitioner complying with the above stipulations, the attachment of the bank account of the petitioner, if any, shall also stand automatically vacated. 9.It is made clear that the bank attachment shall be lifted subject to the deposit of 10% 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. 10.In case, the petitioner fails to comply with any of the stipulations, the 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. 4/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Needless to state, before passing any such order, the respondent shall issue due notice on the petitioner. 12.This Writ Petition stands disposed of with the above observations. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. Index : Yes / No 04.08.2026 Internet : Yes / No mm To The State Tax Officer, Tenkasi Assessment Circle Commercial Taxes Buildings Tenkasi 5/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.SARAVANAN, J.
mm
2026 6/6 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.