T Ashok Kumar vs. The State Tax Officer
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 14.06.2024, passed by the State Tax Officer, Nagercoil Rural Assessment Circle. This order confirmed the proposal in a Show Cause Notice (DRC 01 dated 18.10.2023, though mentioned as 18.01.2023 in the impugned order) without a reply from the petitioner's father. The petitioner's father died on 10.12.2025. The petitioner argued that the impugned order was ex parte and passed without a proper reply. The petitioner conceded to deposit 25% of the disputed tax as a condition for de novo adjudication.
Held
The Court held that the impugned order dated 14.06.2024 was to be quashed. The reasoning was based on the petitioner's submission that the order was passed ex parte due to the absence of a reply to the Show Cause Notice, thereby raising a fair case for the petitioner. The Court acknowledged that the petitioner's liability devolves upon them under Section 93 of the GST enactments. As a condition for de novo adjudication, the petitioner was directed to deposit 25% of the disputed tax in cash from their Electronic Cash Register within thirty days of receiving the order. The petitioner was also required to file a reply to the Show Cause Notice and submit requisite documents within the same period, treating the impugned order as an addendum to the Show Cause Notice. The respondent was directed to pass a fresh order on merits within three months of the reply and pre-deposit, after giving due notice to the petitioner. Failure to comply would allow the respondent 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 14.06.2024 is illegal, without jurisdiction, and in gross violation of the Principles of Natural Justice, as argued by the petitioner? The petitioner contended that the order was ex parte and passed in the absence of a reply to the Show Cause Notice by the deceased proprietor, thus violating natural justice. The respondent, represented by the Government Advocate (Taxes), did not record any specific arguments against the petitioner's plea for a fresh adjudication, but implicitly sought to uphold the impugned order. The Court considered the liability devolving upon the petitioner under Section 93 of the respective GST enactments.
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 14.06.2024 bearing reference in GSTIN. 33ABTPT9116G1Z7/2020-21 of the respondent, whereby the proposal in Show Cause Notice in DRC 01 dated 18.10.2023 (mentioned as 18.01.2023 in the impugned order) 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 25% 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 at 25% 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 25% 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 18.10.2023 together with requisite documents to substantiate the case by treating the Impugned Order dated 14.06.2024 as an addendum to the Show Cause Notice dated 18.10.2023. 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 (1/2) 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 (1/2) 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.