D.Rajendran vs. The Commercial Tax Officer /

Facts

The petitioner, D. Rajendran, a contractor, filed a writ petition challenging an assessment order dated 09.09.2025 and a consequential rectification order dated 10.12.2025, passed by the Commercial Tax Officer/State Tax Officer (Intelligence), Dindigul. These orders confirmed a proposal made in a Show Cause Notice dated 11.06.2025, which was issued for the tax period 2022-23, in the absence of a reply from the petitioner. The writ petition was filed on 25.09.2026, after the limitation period for filing an appeal under Section 107 of the GST enactments had expired. The petitioner stated that the entire tax amount had been recovered but offered to pre-deposit 25% of the disputed tax if not already recovered.

Held

The Court quashed the impugned assessment order dated 09.09.2025 and the consequential rectification order dated 10.12.2025. The case was remitted back to the respondent for a fresh adjudication. This decision was contingent upon the petitioner depositing 25% of the disputed tax in cash from their Electronic Cash Register within thirty days of receiving a copy of the order, provided the said amount had not already been recovered. If more than 25% had already been recovered, no further pre-deposit would be required. The petitioner was also directed to file a reply to the Show Cause Notice dated 11.06.2026, along with supporting documents, within the same period, treating the impugned order as an addendum. The respondent was to pass a final order on merits within three months of the reply and pre-deposit, after giving due notice. If the petitioner failed to comply, the respondent could proceed with recovery as if the writ petition was dismissed in limine. No issue was expressly left undecided.

Key Issues

1. Whether the High Court should entertain a writ petition when the statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the GST enactments is available but the limitation period has expired? (Question of law) 2. Whether the impugned assessment and rectification orders, passed without considering a reply from the petitioner, are sustainable? (Question of mixed law and fact) Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that while the limitation for appeal had expired, they were willing to pre-deposit 25% of the disputed tax demand as a condition for de novo adjudication, especially if the entire tax had already been recovered. They sought to have the orders quashed and the matter remanded. Respondent's arguments: The respondent, represented by the Government Advocate (Taxes), did not explicitly argue against the writ petition being entertained or the merits of the case. Their primary role was to take notice of the petition and respond to the court's directions.