M/S. S R C Saamy Traders vs. The Assistant Commissioner (State Tax)

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. S R C SAAMY TRADERS, represented by its Proprietor, S. CHIDAMBARAM, filed a Writ Petition before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court challenging an Assessment Order dated 30.12.2025, issued by the Assistant Commissioner (State Tax), Madurai Rural South Assessment Circle. This order confirmed a proposal made in a Show Cause Notice dated 25.09.2025, for the tax period 2021-22, in the absence of a reply from the petitioner. The petitioner filed the Writ Petition on 24.09.2026, after the limitation period for filing an appeal under Section 107 of the respective GST enactments had expired. The petitioner expressed willingness to pre-deposit 25% of the disputed tax demand.

Held

The Court quashed the impugned Assessment Order dated 30.12.2025. The case was remitted back to the respondent for de novo adjudication. This decision was made conditional upon the petitioner depositing 25% of the disputed tax in cash from their Electronic Cash Register within thirty (30) days of receiving a copy of the order. Additionally, the petitioner must file a reply to the Show Cause Notice dated 25.09.2025, along with supporting documents, treating the impugned order as an addendum to the show cause notice. If these conditions are met, the respondent shall pass a fresh final order on merits and in accordance with law, preferably within three months of the reply and pre-deposit. Failure to comply with these stipulations would allow the respondent to proceed with recovery as if the writ petition was dismissed in limine. The respondent is also mandated to provide due notice to the petitioner before passing any order. The issue of the limitation period for appeal was implicitly addressed by allowing the writ petition on condition of pre-deposit and de novo adjudication.

Key Issues

1. Whether the High Court, in its writ jurisdiction, should entertain a petition challenging an assessment order when the statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the GST enactments is time-barred. Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that they are willing to pre-deposit 25% of the disputed tax demand as a condition for de novo adjudication, implicitly seeking condonation of delay and a fresh opportunity to present their case. They made a specific endorsement in the court bundle agreeing to pay 25% of the tax demand. Revenue's contention: The judgment records that the learned Special Government Pleader for the respondent took notice. No specific arguments were recorded for the revenue regarding the maintainability of the writ petition or the petitioner's request, other than the implicit acceptance of the court's directions.