Tvl.B.Manikandan vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer-1

Facts

The petitioner, Tvl.B.Manikandan, filed a Writ Petition before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court challenging an Assessment Order in FORM GST DRC-07 dated 23.02.2026, issued by the respondent, The Deputy State Tax Officer-I. This order was preceded by a Show Cause Notice dated 11.08.2025, for which the petitioner had not appeared for a personal hearing. The petitioner filed the Writ Petition on 27.08.2026, 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.

Held

The Court quashed the impugned Assessment Order dated 23.02.2026. The case was remitted back to the respondent for fresh adjudication, subject to the petitioner depositing 25% of the disputed tax in cash from their Electronic Cash Register within thirty days of receiving the order. The petitioner was also directed to file a reply to the Show Cause Notice dated 11.08.2025, along with supporting documents, within the same period, treating the impugned order as an addendum to the show cause notice. The respondent was instructed to pass a final order on merits and in accordance with law within three months of the petitioner's compliance. The Court noted that if the petitioner failed to comply with these stipulations, the respondent was at liberty to recover the tax as if the Writ Petition was dismissed. The respondent was also directed to provide due notice to the petitioner before passing any order. The issue of the respondent's jurisdiction was implicitly addressed by remitting the matter for fresh adjudication.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned Assessment Order dated 23.02.2026, issued by the respondent, is without jurisdiction and in clear violation of statutory provisions, warranting quashing under Article 226 of the Constitution of India? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the order was without jurisdiction and violated statutory provisions. The petitioner also agreed to pre-deposit 25% of the disputed tax demand as a condition for de novo adjudication. Respondent's Contention: The respondent, represented by the learned Government Advocate (Taxes), took notice of the petition. No specific arguments were recorded for the respondent regarding the merits of the case or the petitioner's claims, other than acknowledging the expiry of the appeal period.