Disposed

Reuzip Technolgies Private Limited v. the Assistant Commissioner(St)

Madras HC11 Sept 2025WP/32998/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

GST assessment order and DRC-07 summary quashed for violation of natural justice as no show cause notice or hearing was given; matter remanded with the assessment order to be treated as a show cause notice. Appeal rejection order dismissed as not pressed.

What did the court decide?

Assessment order dated 04.08.2022 and DRC-07 summary quashed; remanded to 1st respondent; assessment order treated as show cause notice; W.P.No.33000 of 2025 dismissed as not pressed.

Reuzip Technolgies Private Limited Vs the Assistant… — GST and Indirect Tax | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

W.P.Nos.32998 & 33000 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

Dated : 11.09.2025

¶4

Coram:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ

¶6

W.P.Nos.32998 & 33000 of 2025 and W.M.P.Nos.37013, 37016, 37021 & 37022 of 2025

¶7

M/s.Reuzip Technolgies Private Limited, Represented by its Director Mr.Kannan Rajendran, No.4/11, Kamatchiamman Sannathi Street, Big Kanchipuram, Kanchipuram – 631 502.

¶8

...Petitioner in both W.Ps

¶9

Versus

¶10

1.The Assistant Commissioner (ST), Velacherry Assessment Circle, Integrated Building for Commercial

¶11

Taxes and Registration Department, Room No.222, 2^nd Floor, Nandanam, Chennai – 600 035.

¶12

2.The Deputy Commissioner (Appeal), Chennai – 1 GST, 3^rd Floor, CT Annex Building, No.1, Greams Road, Thousand Lights,

¶13

Chennai – 600 006.

¶14

...Respondents in both W.Ps

¶15

Prayer in W.P.No.32998 of 2025:

¶16

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of certiorari calling for the records in Order

¶17

1/7

¶18

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶19

W.P.Nos.32998 & 33000 of 2025

¶20

passed by the 1^st respondent in GSTIN 33AAJCR6428H1Z9/2019-20 to 2021-22 dated 04.08.2022 along with the DRC-07 Order under Section 74, Ref.No.ZD331022040606Z dated 29.10.2022 and quash the same as arbitrary issued by the 1^st respondent.

¶21

Prayer in W.P.No.33000 of 2025:

¶22

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of certiorari calling for the records in Order passed by the 2^nd respondent vide GSTIN/temp ID/UIN 33AAJCR6428H1Z9 dated 25.04.2025 and quash the same as arbitrary passed by the 2^nd respondent.

¶23

For Petitioner in both W.Ps : Mr.M.Narasimha Bharathi

¶24

For Respondents in both W.Ps : Mrs.R.Vasanthamala, Government Advocate

¶25

COMMON ORDER

¶26

Mrs.R.Vasanthamala, learned Government Advocate takes notice for

¶27

the respondents.

¶28

2. The relief sought in W.P.No.32998 of 2025 is to quash the order

¶29

dated 04.08.2022 along with summary of the order in Form GST DRC-07

¶30

dated 29.10.2022 passed by 1 st respondent.

¶31

2/7

¶32

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶33

W.P.Nos.32998 & 33000 of 2025

¶34

3. The relief sought in W.P.No.33000 of 2025 is to quash the Order dated 25.04.2025 passed by 2 nd respondent.

¶35

4. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner's GST registration was cancelled by 1 st respondent vide Order dated 28.02.2022. Thereafter, without issuing any prior notice to the petitioner, 1 st respondent has passed the Assessment Order dated 04.08.2022 along with Summary of the Order in Form GST DRC-07 dated 29.10.2022, directing the petitioner to pay the penalty of Rs.2,98,33,173.82/- for committing the offence of issuing invoices without supply of goods. Aggrieved over the Order dated 04.08.2022 passed by 1 st respondent, the petitioner has preferred an Appeal in Form GST APL-01 dated 04.10.2023 before 2 nd respondent. However, 2nd respondent vide Order in Form GST APL-02 dated 25.04.2025, rejected the petitioner's Appeal for the reason, “delay in submission of Appeal”. Subsequently, 1 st respondent vide Intimation Notice dated 28.07.2025, directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.6,83,92,991/- towards arrears of tax, within two days on receipt of that notice. Hence, left with no other option, the petitioner has filed the present writ petitions.

¶36

3/7

¶37

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶38

W.P.Nos.32998 & 33000 of 2025

¶39

5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that prior to the passing of impugned Assessment Order dated 04.08.2022 and Summary of the Order in Form GST DRC-07 dated 29.10.2022, the petitioner was neither served with any Intimation Notice in Form GST DRC-01A, Show Cause Notice in Form GST DRC-01 and Personal Hearing Notice nor afforded with an opportunity of hearing. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Assessment Order and Summary of the Order in Form GST DRC-07 impugned in W.P.No.32998 of 2025 suffer from violation of the principles of natural justice.

¶40

5.1. The learned counsel for the petitioner prayed that the matter may

¶41

be remanded back to 1 st respondent, for fresh consideration and an opportunity may be granted to the petitioner to put forth their case before 1 st respondent.

¶42

The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents submitted that she has no serious objection to this matter being remanded back to 1^st respondent.

¶43

4/7

¶44

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶45

W.P.Nos.32998 & 33000 of 2025

¶46

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner

¶47

is not pressing W.P.No.33000 of 2025. Hence, the learned counsel for the petitioner has made an endorsement to that effect in the petition.

¶48

Heard the learned counsel on both sides and perused the materials

¶49

available on record.

¶50

By consent of learned counsel on both sides, W.P.No.32998 of 2025 stands disposed of on the following terms:

¶51

(i) The Assessment Order dated 04.08.2022 and Summary of the Order in Form GST DRC-07 dated 29.10.2022 impugned in W.P.No.32998 of 2025 are quashed.

¶52

(ii) Consequently, the matter is remanded back to 1^st respondent for fresh consideration.

¶53

(iii) The impugned Assessment Order passed by 1^st respondent shall be treated as Show Cause Notice and the petitioner shall submit their Reply, if any, along with the supporting documents/material, within a period of four weeks from the date of uploading of the web copy of this order without waiting for the receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶54

5/7

¶55

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶56

W.P.Nos.32998 & 33000 of 2025

¶57

(iv) If any such Reply is filed by the petitioner, 1 st respondent shall

¶58

consider the same and pass fresh orders, in accordance with law, after

¶59

affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

¶60

10. Considering the submission coupled with an endorsement made

¶61

by the learned counsel for the petitioner, W.P.No.33000 of 2025 is dismissed as not pressed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶62

11.09.2025

¶63

mrr

¶64

Index : Yes/No Speaking Order (or) Non-Speaking Order

¶65

¶66

1.The Assistant Commissioner (ST), Velacherry Assessment Circle, Integrated Building for Commercial Taxes and Registration Department,

¶67

Room No.222, 2^nd Floor, Nandanam, Chennai – 600 035.

¶68

2.The Deputy Commissioner (Appeal), Chennai – 1 GST, 3^rd Floor, CT Annex Building, No.1, Greams Road, Thousand Lights, Chennai – 600 006.

¶69

6/7

¶70

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶71

W.P.Nos.32998 & 33000 of 2025

¶72

MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J.

¶73

mrr

¶74

W.P.Nos.32998 & 33000 of 2025

¶75

11.09.2025

¶76

7/7

¶77

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Reuzip Technolgies Private Limited v. the Assistant Commissioner(St)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Reuzip Technolgies Private Limited v. the Assistant Commissioner(St)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Capstoneclinic Probity Healthcare LLP Vs The Superintendent Of GST and Central Excise

R.P. Builders Vs The State Tax Officer

Gowtham Enterprises Vs the Superintendent of Cgst and Central Excise

Tvl. Prabha Hardwares Vs Assistant Commissioner (st)

Tvl Bisnuchem India Private Limited Represented by Exclusive Director Vs Proper Officer

Selvam Agencies Vs Deputy Commercial Tax Officer