T Ashok Kumar vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer - 2
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, T. Ashok Kumar, is the legal heir of the deceased proprietor P. Thangaswamy of Tvl. P. Thangaswamy Contractor. The petitioner challenged an order in Form GST DRC-07 dated 22.02.2025, passed by the State Tax Officer, Nagercoil Rural Assessment Circle. This order confirmed the proposal in a Show Cause Notice (DRC-01 dated 25.11.2024) due to the absence of a reply. The petitioner's father, the proprietor, died on 10.12.2025. The petitioner argued that the impugned order was ex parte and passed without a reply from his father, thus presenting a fair case. The petitioner, acknowledging that the liability devolves upon him under Section 93 of the GST enactments, conceded to deposit 10% of the disputed tax as a condition for fresh adjudication.
Held
The Court held that the impugned order passed by the Respondent in Form GST DRC-07 dated 22.02.2025 was to be quashed. The Court reasoned that the order was passed ex parte, without a reply to the Show Cause Notice, thus violating the principles of natural justice. The Court acknowledged the petitioner's concession to deposit 10% of the disputed tax as a condition for de novo adjudication, recognizing that the liability devolves upon the legal heir under Section 93 of the respective GST enactments. The Court's ratio decidendi is that principles of natural justice must be adhered to, and where an order is passed without affording an opportunity to be heard, it is liable to be set aside, subject to certain conditions. The Court directed the quashing of the impugned order and remitted the case back to the respondent for fresh adjudication. The petitioner was directed to deposit 10% of the disputed tax within thirty days and file a reply to the Show Cause Notice. The respondent was then to pass a final order on merits within three months of the reply and pre-deposit. The Court explicitly stated that if the petitioner failed to comply, the respondent could proceed to recover the tax as if the writ petition was dismissed.
Key Issues
1. Whether the impugned order passed by the Respondent in Form GST DRC-07 dated 22.02.2025 is illegal, without jurisdiction, and in gross violation of the principles of natural justice, as argued by the Petitioner? Petitioner's Contentions: The petitioner argued that the impugned order was ex parte and passed in the absence of a reply to the Show Cause Notice by the deceased proprietor, P. Thangaswamy. Therefore, the petitioner contended that the order was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice and should be quashed. The petitioner also conceded to deposit 10% of the disputed tax as a condition for de novo adjudication, acknowledging the devolution of liability under Section 93 of the respective GST enactments. Respondent's Contentions: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondent (State Tax Officer).
Sections Cited
Section 93
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Before: and
M/s.P.Sudarkodi Natchiyar, learned Government Advocate (Taxes), takes notice for the 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 learned Government Advocate (Taxes) for the respondent.
In this Writ Petition, the petitioner has challenged the impugned Assessment Order in Form GST DRC 07 dated 22.02.2025 bearing reference in GSTIN. 33ABTPT9116G1Z7/2020-21 of the respondent, whereby the proposal in Show Cause Notice in DRC 01 dated 25.11.2024 has been confirmed in absence of reply.
The petitioner is the legal heir of the deceased proprietor, namely, P. Thangaswamy, who died on 10.12.2025. 2/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is an ex parte order and was passed in the absence of a reply to the Show Cause Notice by the petitioner's father. Hence, the petitioner has a fair case to succeed.
Although the liability of the petitioner's father devolves upon the petitioner in terms of Section 93 of the respective GST enactments, the learned counsel, on instructions, fairly concedes that the petitioner will deposit 10% of the disputed tax as a condition for de novo adjudication.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has also made an endorsement to that effect in the Court Bundle, which is extracted hereunder:-
“The petitioner is ready to pay 10% of the disputed tax.”
In view of the above, the impugned order is quashed and the case is remitted back to the respondent to pass a fresh order subject to the 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 3/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis this order.
Within such time, the petitioner shall also file a reply to the Show Cause Notice in DRC 01 dated 25.11.2024 together with requisite documents to substantiate the case by treating the Impugned Order dated 22.02.2025 as an addendum to the Show Cause Notice dated 25.11.2024. 10. 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 (3) months of such reply / pre-deposit.
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.
Needless to state, before passing any such order, the respondent shall give due notice to the petitioner. 4/6 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. Index : Yes / No 18.09.2026 Internet : Yes / No (2/2) apd To The State Tax Officer Nagercoil Rural Assessment Circle Kanniyakumari District 5/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.SARAVANAN, J.
apd
2026 (2/2) 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.