Ms Ja Industries Rep by its Proprietor J Arul Prakash Vs The Assistant Commissioner St

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the orders of the respondent in Form DRC-07 with refernece no.ZD330225104717O dated 12.02.2025 passed under Section 73 of the TNGST Act, 2017 pertaining to the financial year 2020-21 and quash the same as illegal, devoid of merits and in violation of principles of natural justice.

¶15

For Petitioner : Mr.Varun Pandian For Respondent : M/s.K.Vasanthamala,

¶16

Page No. 1 of 7

¶17

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

¶18

Government Advocate

¶19

¶20

W.P.No.45015 of 2025

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

M/s.K.Vasanthamala, learned Government Advocate takes notice for the

¶23

Respondent.

¶24

2. This Writ Petition is being disposed of at the time of admission with

¶25

the consent of the learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned Government

¶26

Advocate for the Respondent.

¶27

3. In this Writ Petition, the Petitioner has challenged the impugned Order

¶28

in FORM GST DRC-07 bearing Ref.No No.ZD330225104717O dated

¶29

12.02.2025 which was preceded by a Show Cause Notice in GST DRC-01 dated 16.11.2024 wherein the Petitioner was called upon to appear for personal

¶30

hearing. However, the Petitioner had not taken advantage of the same and thus,

¶31

suffered the impugned Order dated 12.02.2025.

¶32

Page No. 2 of 7

¶33

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

¶34

W.P.No.45015 of 2025

¶35

4. It is noticed that the limitation for filing an appeal under Section 107 of

¶36

the respective GST enactments, 2017 against the impugned Order has already

¶37

expired. The present Writ Petition has been filed only on 17.11.2025.

¶38

5. Under similar circumstances, Orders have been quashed and cases have

¶39

been remitted back to pass a fresh order on terms subject to such Assessee depositing 25% to 100% of the disputed tax depending upon the length of delay

¶40

in approaching the Court. I do not find any reason to take a different view in

¶41

this case.

¶42

6. Therefore, to balance the interest of both parties viz., the Assessee and

¶43

the Revenue, the case is remitted back to the Respondent to pass a fresh order

¶44

subject to the Petitioner depositing 25% of the disputed tax in cash from the Petitioner's Electronic Cash Register within a period of thirty (30) days from the

¶45

date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶46

Page No. 3 of 7

¶47

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

¶48

7.

¶49

W.P.No.45015 of 2025 7. Within such time, the Petitioner shall also file a reply to the Show

¶50

Cause Notice in GST DRC-01 dated 16.11.2024 together with requisite documents to substantiate the case by treating the impugned Order dated

¶51

12.02.2025 as an addendum to the Show Cause Notice dated 16.11.2024.

¶52

8. In case the Petitioner complies with the above stipulations, the Respondent shall proceed to pass a final order on merits and in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of three (3) months of such reply/pre-deposit. Subject to the Petitioner complying with the above stipulations, the attachment of the bank account of the Petitioner shall also stand automatically vacated.

¶53

9. It is made clear that bank attachment shall be lifted subject to the

¶54

deposit of 25% of the disputed tax as ordered above and no other amount is in

¶55

arrears barring the amount demanded under the impugned Order.

¶56