Iyyanan Eswaran vs. The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (St) (GST)

Facts

The petitioner, Iyyanan Eswaran, proprietor of Tvl. Iyyanan Eswaran, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 27.05.2026 and a summary in Form GST DRC-07 issued by the Deputy State Tax Officer-1 for the tax period April 2023 to December 2023. The petitioner sought to quash the order, directing a fresh adjudication after considering tax already declared and paid in GSTR-3B returns, allowing filing of a reply, reconciliation, and providing a personal hearing. Alternatively, the petitioner requested the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (ST) to receive a statutory appeal despite the delay, treating the already paid tax as pre-deposit, or allowing pre-deposit of 10% of the disputed tax. The petitioner also sought to lift the attachment of bank accounts.

Held

The Court held that the impugned order dated 27.05.2026 was issued without hearing the petitioner, thus breaching the principles of natural justice. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned order. This decision was made subject to the condition that the petitioner remits 25% of the tax demand under the impugned order within thirty days of receiving a copy of the Court's order. Upon fulfillment of this condition, the matter would be remanded for fresh adjudication, providing the petitioner an opportunity to contest the case on merits. A fresh order was to be issued within five months from the date of remittance. The Court also directed that the bank attachment related to the impugned order would be raised upon fulfillment of the condition. The writ petition was disposed of on these terms.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order dated 27.05.2026, issued by the second respondent, is liable to be quashed for breach of the principles of natural justice, specifically for being passed without affording the petitioner an effective opportunity of personal hearing? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the order was passed in violation of natural justice principles as they were not heard. They sought a remand for fresh adjudication with a personal hearing, credit for taxes already paid, and permission to file a reply and reconcile documents. They also presented alternative prayers regarding the statutory appeal process and pre-deposit requirements. Revenue's arguments: The judgment records that the learned Government Advocate for the respondents accepted notice. No specific arguments from the revenue's side are detailed in the provided text regarding the merits of the case or the procedural objections.