Baskaran S Vs the Deputy Commissioenr (Ct) — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

Baskaran S Vs the Deputy Commissioenr (Ct) — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition disposed of with observations: impugned order dated 25.12.2023 quashed and case remitted to the second respondent to redo the exercise, subject to pre-deposit of another 40% of the disputed tax within 30 days and a reply to the DRC-01 show cause notice dated 29.09.2023 treating the impugned order as its addendum; on compliance, the first respondent to pass a fresh final order on merits preferably within three months and the bank account attachment stands automatically raised/vacated; on failure, recovery may proceed as if the writ was dismissed in limine. No costs; connected Writ Miscellaneous Petitions closed.

Issue for consideration

Whether the ex parte order dated 25.12.2023 passed under section 73 of the TNGST Act, 2017 (for failure to respond to the DRC-01 show cause notice dated 29.09.2023), and the consequent rejection of the belated statutory appeal, ought to be quashed as violative of principles of natural justice with a fresh opportunity to reply to the show cause notice.

Court's answer

The impugned order dated 25.12.2023 is quashed and the case is remitted back to the second respondent to redo the exercise, subject to the condition that the petitioner pre-deposits another 40% of the disputed tax within 30 days of receipt of a copy of the order.

Ratio / Principle

Within the stipulated time, the petitioner shall also file a reply to the Show Cause Notice in GST DRC-01 dated 29.09.2023 together with requisite documents, treating the impugned order dated 25.12.2023 as an addendum to the show cause notice.

Key takeaways

If the petitioner complies with the stipulations, the first respondent shall pass a final order on merits and in accordance with law, preferably within three (3) months of such reply/pre-deposit.ratio¶¶48
Subject to the petitioner complying with the stipulations, the attachment of the petitioner's bank account shall stand automatically raised/vacated.ratio¶¶51
In case the petitioner fails to comply with any of the stipulations, the first respondent is at liberty to proceed to recover the tax in accordance with law as if the writ petition was dismissed in limine.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (C. Saravanan, J.; decision dated 01.12.2025) disposed of a writ petition under Article 226 challenging an ex parte order dated 25.12.2023 (Ref. No.ZD3312231945694) passed by the Assistant Commissioner (ST), Poonamallee Assessment Circle under section 73 of the TNGST Act, 2017 for tax period July 2017-2018, alleging a GSTR3B-vs-GSTR1 tax liability difference of about Rs.89,424/- and wrong availment of Input Tax Credit. The order followed the petitioner's non-response to the DRC-01 show cause notice dated 29.09.2023 (Ref. ZD330923239293C); his belated appeal filed on 18.05.2024 (after depositing 10% of the disputed tax) was rejected on 25.03.2025. Recording the petitioner's averment of serious ill-health preventing portal access, and following the consistent view in similar circumstances, the Court quashed the impugned order and remitted the matter to the assessing authority, subject to pre-deposit of a further 40% of the disputed tax within 30 days and a reply to the show cause notice treating the impugned order as an addendum thereto. On compliance, the first respondent is to pass a fresh final order on merits preferably within three months, and the attachment on the petitioner's bank account stands automatically raised/vacated; on failure, recovery may proceed as if the writ petition were dismissed in limine. No costs; connected W.M.P.No.51174 of 2025 closed.