M/S.Revathi Steel And Cement vs. The Commercial Tax Officer
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, M/s. Revathi Steel And Cement, challenged an order dated December 28, 2023, passed by the Commercial Tax Officer, Tiruchendur Assessment Circle. This order confirmed a demand raised by a Show Cause Notice dated September 12, 2023, under Section 73 of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, for the tax period July 2017 to March 2018. The demand confirmed was Rs. 12,28,060/- in tax, Rs. 12,58,474/- in interest, and Rs. 26,09,340/- in penalty. The petitioner did not file a reply to the Show Cause Notice, leading to an ex-parte order. The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking to quash the order and for an opportunity to file objections and produce records. The petitioner was absent during the hearing.
Held
The Court acknowledged that typically, a writ petition would not be entertained when an alternative remedy of appeal is available, citing Supreme Court precedents. However, considering that the impugned order was passed ex-parte due to the petitioner's failure to respond to the Show Cause Notice, the Court was inclined to provide relief. The Court held that the matter should be remitted to the respondent for fresh consideration. This relief is conditional upon the petitioner filing a reply to the show-cause notice within thirty days of receiving the order, treating the impugned order as an addendum to the show-cause notice. Additionally, the petitioner must pre-deposit the disputed tax amount of Rs. 12,28,060/-. If these conditions are met, the respondent shall pass fresh orders on merits after hearing the petitioner within three months. Failure to comply will result in the writ petition being dismissed.
Key Issues
1. Whether the Court should entertain a writ petition challenging an order passed under Section 73 of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, when an alternative remedy of appeal is available, and the petitioner failed to respond to the show cause notice? (Question of law). Petitioner's argument: The petitioner sought to quash the ex-parte order and be granted an opportunity to file objections and produce records, implying a challenge to the procedural fairness of the order. (No specific arguments recorded as the petitioner was absent). Respondent's argument: The respondent, through the Government Advocate (Taxes), relied on Supreme Court decisions in *Singh Enterprises v. CCE*, *CCE and Customs v. Hongo India (P) Ltd.*, and *Assistant Commissioner (CT), LTU, Kakinada v. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Ltd.* to argue that a writ petition is not maintainable when an alternative remedy exists and the petitioner has not availed it or responded to the show cause notice.
Sections Cited
Section 73
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Before: and
This Writ Petition is disposed of at the time of admission with the consent of the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Advocate (Taxes) for the respondent. 2.When the matter was taken up for hearing, there was no representation on behalf of the petitioner. 3.In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 28.12.2023, whereby the proposal contained in the Show Cause Notice in Form DRC-01 dated 12.09.2023 was confirmed, in the absence of a reply under Section 73 of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, for the tax period 2017– 2018. By the impugned order, the following demand was confirmed: 2/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Tax Period From To Tax Interest Penalty Total Jul 2017 MAR 2018 6,14,030.00 6,29,237.00 61,403.00 13,04,670.00 Jul 2017 MAR 2018 6,14,030.00 6,29,237.00 61,403.00 13,04,670.00 12,28,060.00 12,58,474.00 26,09,340.00 4.As such, there is no scope for entertaining either the writ petition or granting liberty to the petitioner to challenge the impugned order before the Appellate Authority, in view of the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Singh Enterprises v. CCE, reported in (2008) 3 SCC 70; CCE and Customs v. Hongo India (P) Ltd., reported in (2009) 5 SCC 791; and Assistant Commissioner (CT), LTU, Kakinada v. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Ltd., reported in 2020 SCC OnLine SC 440. 5.However, considering the fact that the impugned order was passed ex parte, I am inclined to come to the petitioner’s rescue by remitting the matter to 3/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis the respondent for passing fresh orders, subject to the petitioner filing a reply to the show-cause notice that preceded the impugned order and pre-deposit to the disputed tax. 6.The petitioner shall file a reply to the notice that preceded the impugned order within a period of thirty (30) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, by treating the impugned order as addendum to the Show Cause Notice along with a pre deposit of the disputed tax amount of Rs.12,28,060/-. 7.In case the petitioner complies with the above stipulations, the respondent shall proceed to pass fresh orders on merits and in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of three (3) months thereafter, after hearing the petitioner. 8.In case the petitioner fails to comply with the above stipulations, the respondent is at liberty to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law as if this Writ Petition was dismissed in limine today. 4/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
This Writ Petition is disposed of, with the above observations. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Index : Yes / No 18.09.2026 Internet : Yes / No sji To The Commercial Tax Officer, Tiruchendur Assessment Circle, Thoothukudi District. 5/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.SARAVANAN, J.
sji
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.