Sri. Sokkupillai Balan vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer - I

Facts

The petitioner, Sri. Sokkupillai Balan, filed a writ petition challenging an Assessment Order dated 20.01.2026 issued by the respondent, the Deputy State Tax Officer - I. This order confirmed a proposal made in a Show Cause Notice dated 10.04.2024, in the absence of a reply from the petitioner. The writ petition was filed on 25.09.2026, after the period for filing an appeal under Section 107 of the respective GST enactments had expired. The petitioner stated that a part of the demand had already been recovered and expressed willingness to pre-deposit 25% of the disputed tax for de novo adjudication.

Held

The Court quashed the impugned Assessment Order dated 20.01.2026 and remitted the case back to the respondent for a fresh order. This decision was made conditional upon the petitioner depositing 25% of the disputed tax, after deducting any amount already recovered, within thirty days of receiving a copy of the order. The recovery was made subject to verification. The petitioner was also directed to file a reply to the Show Cause Notice dated 10.04.2024, along with supporting documents, treating the impugned order as an addendum to the show cause notice. If the petitioner complied, the respondent was to pass a final order on merits expeditiously, preferably within three months of the reply and pre-deposit. The respondent was also directed to provide due notice to the petitioner before passing any order. The Court noted that the limitation period for filing an appeal had expired, but granted this relief based on the petitioner's willingness to pre-deposit a portion of the demand.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned Assessment Order dated 20.01.2026, issued by the Deputy State Tax Officer - I, is liable to be quashed as illegal, considering the petitioner's failure to file a reply to the Show Cause Notice dated 10.04.2024 and the expiry of the appeal period under Section 107 of the GST enactments? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that a part of the demand had already been recovered and expressed willingness to pre-deposit 25% of the disputed tax as a condition for de novo adjudication, making an endorsement to this effect. The petitioner did not explicitly argue on the legality of the order itself but sought an opportunity to present their case. Respondent's Contention: The respondent, represented by the Government Advocate (Taxes), took notice of the petition. No specific arguments were recorded for the respondent in the judgment.