Tvl. Pio Agencies vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer - 2

Held

The Court quashed the impugned order dated January 29, 2025, and remitted the case back to the first respondent for passing a fresh order on merits. This decision was based on the fact that the petitioner had already deposited 10% of the disputed tax and 100% of the disputed tax had been recovered. The Court directed the petitioner to file a reply to the notice in DRC-01 dated October 17, 2024, within thirty days of receiving the order, treating the impugned order as an addendum to the show cause notice. The first respondent was then directed to pass a fresh order on merits, after hearing the petitioner, expeditiously, preferably within three months. The Court also stipulated that if the petitioner failed to comply with these conditions, the respondents would be at liberty to proceed against the petitioner as if the writ petition was dismissed in limine. No issue was expressly left undecided.

Facts

The petitioner, Tvl. Pio Agencies, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated January 29, 2025, passed by the Deputy State Tax Officer-2 (first respondent). The petitioner had previously filed an appeal against this order before the Deputy Commissioner (CT), GST Appeal (second respondent), which was dismissed on July 10, 2025, for being filed beyond the condonable period of limitation. The impugned order by the first respondent followed a notice in DRC-01 dated October 17, 2024. The petitioner also submitted that 100% of the disputed tax was recovered from their bank account after the impugned order, and they had deposited 10% of the disputed tax at the time of filing the appeal before the second respondent.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order passed by the first respondent, dated January 29, 2025, is illegal and in gross violation of the Principles of Natural Justice, as contended by the petitioner? The petitioner argued that the impugned order was passed without providing an adequate opportunity to file a reply to the notice in DRC-01 dated October 17, 2024, and that the subsequent dismissal of their appeal by the second respondent was solely on the ground of limitation, without considering the merits. The petitioner also highlighted that 100% of the disputed tax had been recovered and 10% had been deposited. The respondents did not record any specific arguments in the judgment.