Disposed

Mr.C.Muthukarthik v. The Commercial Tax Officer

Madras HC4 Jun 2025WP(MD)/15190/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

GST assessment order under Form GST DRC-07 was passed against an assessee after his death; his legal heir challenged it. The court set aside the impugned order, remitted the matter for fresh orders, and permitted the petitioner to file a reply within 30 days with a personal hearing.

What did the court decide?

Impugned DRC-07 order set aside; matter remitted to respondent for fresh orders after hearing; petitioner may file reply within 30 days.

Mr.C.Muthukarthik Vs The Commercial Tax Officer — GST and Indirect Tax | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

W.P.(MD) No.15190 of 2025

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 04.06.2025

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN

¶6

W.P.(MD) No.15190 of 2025 and W.M.P.(MD) No.11474 of 2025

C.Muthukarthik

... Petitioner

The Commercial Tax Officer, Kodaikanal. ... Respondent

¶11

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order GSTIN 33AAOPC 2533J1ZX issued vide Form GST DRC -07 with ref No.ZD330424136523P, dated 17.04.2024 for the tax period April 2018 to March 2019 issued by the respondent and quash the same as illegal and directing the respondent not to proceed further to recover the demand pursuant to the said order.

¶12

1/4

¶13

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

¶14

W.P.(MD) No.15190 of 2025

¶15

For petitioner :Mr.T.V.Suresh Kumar M/s.Genicon Legal For respondent : Mr.J.K.Jayaselan Government Advocate ***** ORDER

¶16

This Writ Petition is disposed of at the time of admission after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Advocate for the respondent.

¶17

The petitioner is one of the legal heirs of the deceased assessee, namely, S.M.Chandrasekar, who died on 04.12.2024. The respondent has proceeded against the petitioner's father by issuing notice in DRC 01 and DRC 01A followed by the reminders dated 05.03.2024, 12.03.2024 and 03.04.2024 and passed impugned assessment order dated 17.04.2024.

¶18

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner may be given one opportunity to file reply.

¶19

Considering the fact that the assessment order has been passed against

¶20

2/4

¶21

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

¶22

W.P.(MD) No.15190 of 2025

¶23

the death person, the impugned order is set aside and the case is remitted back to the respondent to pass fresh orders.

¶24

It is for the petitioner to file a reply as the legal representative of the deceased assessee, namely, S.M.Chandrasekar to the notices that preceded the impugned order within a period of 30 days from today. The respondent shall, thereafter, pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible.

¶25

Needless to state, before passing the said order, the petitioner shall be heard.

¶26

This Writ Petition is disposed of, with above observations. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶27

Index : Yes / No 04.06.2025 Internet : Yes / No apd To The Commercial Tax Officer, Kodaikanal.

¶28

3/4

¶29

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

¶30

W.P.(MD) No.15190 of 2025

¶31

C.SARAVANAN, J.

¶32

apd

¶33

W.P.(MD) No.15190 of 2025

¶34

04.06.2025

¶35

4/4

¶36

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

Mr.C.Muthukarthik v. The Commercial Tax Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr.C.Muthukarthik v. The Commercial Tax Officer

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

M/s. Sri Ganapathy Textiles, Vs Deputy State Tax Officer - 2

Santhosh Kumar M Vs The Regional Passport officer

Muthu P Vs The District Collector

Tvl. Arulmigu Gomathi Sankar Modern Rice Mill Vs The Proper Officer

Karthik Vs The Regional Passport Officer

K.Veerapandian Vs The Regional Passport Officer