Ramesh Agency vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)

Facts

The petitioner, Ramesh Agency, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 29.06.2026 and a Form DRC-07 dated 23.12.2025 passed by the Assistant Commissioner (ST) for the Financial Year 2021-22. This was the second round of litigation. Previously, an ex parte assessment order dated 25.01.2025 had confirmed a demand of Rs.38,79,490/-, significantly higher than the Rs.6,46,452/- proposed in the Show Cause Notice dated 03.10.2024. The petitioner had challenged the earlier order in W.P.(MD) No.15086 of 2025, and this Court, by an order dated 12.02.2026, had remitted the matter back, directing the petitioner to file a reply within six weeks and granting an opportunity for personal hearing. The impugned order was passed on 29.06.2026 without a reply from the petitioner, despite the previous court order.

Held

The Court held that the impugned order dated 29.06.2026 was quashed and the case was remitted back to the respondent. The Court acknowledged that the petitioner had not cooperated despite a previous order in their favour. However, considering the circumstances and the petitioner's agreement to deposit 10% of the disputed tax, the Court decided to give one more opportunity. The petitioner was directed to deposit 10% of the disputed tax in cash from their Electronic Cash Register within thirty days of receiving the order. Concurrently, the petitioner was to file a reply to the Show Cause Notice dated 01.06.2026, treating the impugned order as an addendum. If these stipulations were complied with, the respondent was to pass a fresh order on merits after giving due notice. Failure to comply would allow the respondent to proceed with recovery as if the writ petition was dismissed. The Court expressly left undecided the merits of the tax demand itself, focusing on procedural compliance.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order dated 29.06.2026, passed by the Respondent, is arbitrary and in gross violation of the principles of natural justice, particularly in light of the previous order of this Court dated 12.02.2026 in W.P.(MD) No.15086 of 2025, which directed a fresh consideration and personal hearing? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the impugned order was passed arbitrarily and in violation of natural justice principles, as it was issued without considering their reply and despite the specific directions from this Court in the previous writ petition to provide an opportunity for personal hearing. The petitioner contended that the previous order was meant to give them a chance to present their case, which was not afforded. Respondent's contention: The respondent contended that a personal hearing notice was issued on 10.06.2026, but the petitioner failed to respond. The respondent argued that the petitioner did not cooperate despite the previous court order and that the writ petition lacked merit. The respondent also pointed out that the petitioner had an alternative remedy under Section 107 of the respective GST enactment.