Tvl. Sri Sr Rice Mill Deppo vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer - 1

Held

The Court held that the impugned order dated 23.12.2025 was issued without hearing the petitioner. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned order. This decision was made conditional upon the petitioner remitting 25% of the tax demand under the impugned order within thirty days from the date of receipt of a copy of the Court's order. Upon fulfilment of this condition, the petitioner would be provided an opportunity to contest the matter on merits. The respondent was directed to issue a fresh order within five months from the date of remittance of the 25% tax demand, after providing a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner. The Court also directed that subject to the fulfilment of the condition, any bank attachment relating to the impugned order shall be raised. The Writ Petition was disposed of on these terms.

Facts

The petitioner, Tvl. SRI SR RICE MILL DEPPO, represented by its Proprietor, S. Soundararajan, filed a writ petition before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court. The petition challenged an order dated 23.12.2025, passed by the respondent, The Deputy State Tax Officer – 1, Munichalai Assessment Circle, Madurai. The petitioner contended that the impugned order was passed in gross violation of the principles of natural justice. The petitioner agreed to pay 25% of the disputed tax demand under the impugned order as a condition for remand. The respondent accepted notice through the Special Government Pleader.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order dated 23.12.2025, passed by the respondent, is liable to be quashed for gross violation of the principles of natural justice, specifically the right to a personal hearing, as contemplated under the provisions of the GST Act? The petitioner argued that the impugned order was passed without providing an opportunity for a personal hearing, thereby violating the fundamental principles of natural justice. The petitioner sought a direction to the respondent to re-do the assessment afresh after providing an opportunity of personal hearing. The respondent, represented by the Special Government Pleader, accepted notice. No specific arguments were recorded for the respondent in the judgment, other than accepting notice and the subsequent order being passed on terms agreed upon.