Adrian Logistics vs. The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (GST)
Facts
The petitioner, Adrian Logistics, filed a writ petition challenging an ex parte order dated 12.02.2025 passed by the Deputy State Tax Officer/Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Tuticorin. The petitioner contended that they were unaware of the proceedings as notice was served only through the online portal. The revenue, represented by the Government Advocate, submitted that in similar cases, relief was granted upon deposit of 25% of the disputed tax amount. The petitioner agreed to deposit 25% of the disputed tax amount within thirty days. The writ petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Held
The Court held that the ex parte order passed by the second respondent was to be quashed. The reasoning was based on the petitioner's contention of not being aware of the proceedings due to online notice service, and the revenue's concession to grant relief upon deposit of a portion of the disputed tax. The Court directed the petitioner to deposit 25% of the disputed tax amount through the electronic cash ledger within thirty days. Upon compliance, the attachment on the petitioner's ITC account would be raised, and the impugned order would stand quashed. The petitioner was also directed to file a reply to the show cause notice within thirty days thereafter. The second respondent was to provide a personal hearing and pass a final order within two months. The Court also stipulated that if the petitioner failed to comply with the deposit and reply deadlines, the benefit of this order would be recalled, and the impugned order could be enforced.
Key Issues
1. Whether the ex parte order passed by the second respondent is liable to be quashed on the ground of lack of proper notice to the petitioner? (Question of law) The petitioner argued that the ex parte order was illegal because they were not aware of the proceedings due to notice being served solely through the online portal. They sought to quash the order. The respondents, through the Government Advocate, did not contest the petitioner's claim of lack of awareness but proposed a conditional relief. They submitted that in similar matters, the Court had granted relief upon the assessee depositing 25% of the disputed tax amount.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 19.09.2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN and W.M.P.(MD)Nos.20104 and 20106 of 2025 Adrian Logistics, Represented by its Proprietor, Vijay Anand, S/o Manoharan, 1A/4 Sivanthakulam Road, Tuticorin – 628 003. ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (GST), 4th floor, Commercial Taxes Buildings, Dr. S.V.K.S. Thangaraj Salai, Madurai – 625 020. Camp office at 1st Floor, Commercial Taxes Buildings, South High Ground Road, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli – 627 002. 2.The Deputy State Tax Officer / Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, State Tax, Commercial Tax Office, Tuticorin - II, Assessment Circle, No.6R, North Cotton Road, Thoothukudi, Tuticorin, Tamil Nadu – 628001. ... Respondents 1/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records pertaining to the order passed by the 2nd respondent in Order No.ZD330225105636P/2020-2021/ dated 12.02.2025 /G
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.