Tvl Shankar Agencies vs. State Tax Officer (St)

Facts

The petitioner, Tvl. Shankar Agencies, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 12.02.2025 (erroneously stated as 12.02.2024 in paragraph 2 of the judgment) issued by the respondent, the State Tax Officer, confirming a demand for the tax period 2020-21. This order followed a notice in FORM GST DRC-01 dated 25.11.2024 and three personal hearing notices. The petitioner had not responded to these notices, leading to the confirmation of the demand. The writ petition was disposed of at the admission stage with the consent of both parties.

Held

The Court decided to quash the impugned order dated 12.02.2025. The reasoning was based on the Court's previous practice in similar cases where it had granted relief by quashing orders on the condition of depositing 25% of the disputed tax. The ratio decidendi is that procedural lapses by the petitioner, leading to ex-parte orders, can be condoned by the Court by remitting the matter back to the authority, subject to a pre-deposit of a portion of the disputed tax. The operative direction is to quash the impugned order and remit the case back to the respondent for fresh orders. The petitioner is required to deposit 25% of the disputed tax in cash within thirty days and file a reply to the notice in DRC 01. The respondent shall then pass fresh orders after hearing the petitioner, preferably within three months. Failure to comply with these stipulations will allow the respondent to proceed as if the writ petition was dismissed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order dated 12.02.2025, confirming the GST demand for the tax period 2020-21, should be quashed, considering the petitioner's failure to respond to the show cause notice and personal hearing notices? The petitioner argued for quashing the order, while the respondent relied on the petitioner's non-response to justify the order. The Court noted that in similar circumstances, it had previously quashed impugned orders on the condition of the petitioner depositing 25% of the disputed tax. The Court considered whether to follow this precedent.