M/S.Madurai Janath Co Op Stores Limited vs. The State Tax Officer

Facts

The petitioner, M/s.Madurai Janath Co Op Stores Limited, represented by its Manager in Charge, filed a Writ Petition before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court challenging an Assessment Order dated 17.12.2025 issued by the respondent, the State Tax Officer. This order confirmed a proposal made in a Show Cause Notice dated 09.07.2025, which was issued 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 stated that 97% of the tax amount had already been recovered and expressed willingness to pre-deposit 25% of the disputed tax.

Held

The Court quashed the impugned Assessment Order dated 17.12.2025. The case was remitted back to the respondent-State Tax Officer for a fresh adjudication. This decision was made conditional upon the petitioner depositing 25% of the disputed tax, if not already recovered, within thirty days from the receipt of the order. The recovery was to be subject to verification. The petitioner was also directed to file a reply to the Show Cause Notice dated 09.07.2025, along with supporting documents, treating the impugned order as an addendum to the notice. The respondent was to pass a final order on merits within three months of the petitioner's compliance. Failure to comply would allow the respondent to proceed with recovery as if the writ petition was dismissed. The Court noted that the limitation period for appeal had expired but proceeded to grant relief based on the petitioner's willingness to pre-deposit and the fact that a substantial portion of the tax was already recovered.

Key Issues

1. Whether the High Court, in its writ jurisdiction, should entertain a challenge to an assessment order when the statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the GST enactments is available but the limitation period has expired? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that while the appeal period had expired, they were willing to pre-deposit 25% of the disputed tax amount as a condition for de novo adjudication, especially since a significant portion of the tax demand (97%) had already been recovered. They sought quashing of the impugned order and a fresh adjudication. Revenue's contention: The respondent, represented by the Special Government Pleader, took notice of the petition. No specific arguments were recorded for the revenue regarding the maintainability of the writ petition or the merits of the case, other than their appearance and acceptance of notice.