M/S.Mpk Stores vs. The Deputy Commissioner (Appeal)
Facts
The petitioner, M/s. MPK Stores, represented by its Proprietor Sultan, filed a Writ Petition challenging an Assessment Order dated 30.12.2025 passed by the second respondent, the Assistant Commissioner (Deputy State Tax Officer-2). This order confirmed the proposal made in a Show Cause Notice dated 26.05.2025. The petitioner had filed a reply to the Show Cause Notice but admitted to not providing a proper reply concerning defect No. 1 and failing to produce documents for defect No. 2. The Court considered remitting the case back to the second respondent for a fresh order, subject to the petitioner depositing 25% of the disputed tax.
Held
The Court quashed the impugned Assessment Order dated 30.12.2025. The case was remitted back to the second respondent for passing a fresh order. This was made subject to the petitioner depositing 25% of the disputed tax in cash from its 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 26.05.2025, along with requisite documents, treating the impugned order as an addendum to the Show Cause Notice. If these stipulations were complied with, the second respondent was to pass a final order on merits expeditiously, preferably within three months of the reply and pre-deposit. The attachment of the petitioner's bank account would stand vacated upon compliance. The Court clarified that if the petitioner failed to comply, the respondents could proceed to recover the tax as if the Writ Petition was dismissed. The second respondent was to provide due notice before passing any fresh order. No issue was expressly left undecided.
Key Issues
1. Whether the impugned Assessment Order dated 30.12.2025, passed by the second respondent, is illegal and liable to be quashed? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner sought to quash the impugned order and requested a fresh inquiry. The petitioner's counsel made an endorsement agreeing to deposit 25% of the disputed tax subject to a fresh consideration of the disputed tax by the respondent. Revenue's contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments from the revenue or state. However, the revenue, through the learned Government Advocate (Taxes), took notice of the petition and was represented.
Sections Cited
DRC 01
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
__________ Page1 of 7 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 29-09-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C. SARAVANAN and W.M.P.(MD) Nos.21288 & 21289 of 2026 CNR:{HCMD011386602026} M/s.MPK Stores, Rep. by its Proprietor Sultan ..Petitioner(s) Vs
The Deputy Commissioner (Appeal), Madurai, GST Office, Commercial Taxes Buildings, Dr.Thangaraja Salai, Madurai
The Assistant Commissioner (Deputy State Tax Officer-2) GST Office, Theni - I Assessment Circle, Theni, Theni District
The Branch Manager The State Bank of India, Vaigai Dam Road, Thenkarai, Periyakulam, Theni District ..Respondent(s) Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records predating to the Impugned final order bearing No.GSTIN33BNUPS4831H1ZG dated 30.12.2025 on the file of the 2nd Respondent and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the 2nd Respondent to conduct the enquiry https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis __________ Page2 of 7 afresh. For Petitioner(s): Mr.R. Shankar Ganesh For R1 & R2 : M/s.P.Sud
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
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.