Disposed

Tvl. Sri Mahalakshmi Logistics v. The Deputy State Tax Officer - II

Madras HC29 Oct 2025WP(MD)/30460/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Ex parte GST assessment order challenged as served only via online portal without notice. Court quashed it on condition petitioner deposits 25% of disputed tax within thirty days and replies to show cause notice; respondent to provide personal hearing and pass final order within two months.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order quashed subject to deposit of 25% disputed tax and fresh reply; personal hearing and reassessment directed.

Tvl. Sri Mahalakshmi Logistics Vs The Deputy State Tax… — GST and Indirect Tax | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

W.P(MD)No.30460 of 2025

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 29.10.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN

¶6

W.P(MD)No.30460 of 2025 and W.M.P.(MD)No.23676 of 2025

¶7

Tvl.Sri Mahalakshmi Logistics Rep. by its Proprietor S.Raja Suriya, 238, Vasan Nagar Main Road, Pothumbu, Madurai-625 018. ... Petitioner Vs.

¶8

The Deputy State Tax Officer-II, West Veli Street Assessment Circle, Madurai. ... Respondent

¶9

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the Respondent vide his order in GSTIN 33DQFPR3753H1Z0 /2020-21 dated 07-02-2025 and quash the same as it is illegal, without jurisdiction and in gross violation of Principles of Natural Justice and further direct the respondent to re-do the assessment afresh after providing an opportunity of Personal Hearing as per the provisions of the GST Act.

¶10

1/4

¶11

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

¶12

W.P(MD)No.30460 of 2025

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.B.Naveenkumar For Respondent : Mr.R.Sureshkumar Additional Government Pleader

¶14

ORDER

¶15

Heard both sides.

¶16

2.The petitioner had suffered the impugned order at the hands of the respondent. It is an ex parte order. The petitioner states that since notice was served only through on-line portal, the petitioner was not aware of the same.

¶17

3.The learned Additional Government Pleader submits that in similar matters, reliefs were granted by directing the assessee to deposit 25% of the disputed tax amount.

¶18

4.The petitioner states that they will deposit 25% of the disputed tax amount through electronic cash ledger within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Upon such compliance, the attachment effected on the petitioner's ITC account shall be raised forthwith. The impugned order shall stand quashed. The petitioner shall thereafter reply to the show cause notice within a period of thirty days thereafter. The respondent

¶19

2/4

¶20

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

¶21

W.P(MD)No.30460 of 2025

¶22

shall provide an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner and pass final order within a period of two months thereafter. If the petitioner fails to deposit and offer his reply to the show cause notice within the aforesaid period, the benefit of this order would stand automatically recalled and the order impugned in the writ petition can very well be enforced.

¶23

5.This writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶24

29.10.2025 Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/ No rmi

¶25

¶26

The Deputy State Tax Officer-II, West Veli Street Assessment Circle, Madurai.

¶27

3/4

¶28

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

¶29

W.P(MD)No.30460 of 2025

¶30

G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.

¶31

rmi

¶32

W.P(MD)No.30460 of 2025

¶33

29.10.2025

¶34

4/4

¶35

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

Tvl. Sri Mahalakshmi Logistics v. The Deputy State Tax Officer - II

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tvl. Sri Mahalakshmi Logistics v. The Deputy State Tax Officer - II

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S.Mugasri Engineering Contractor Vs Commercial Tax Officer

A.Sodalaimuthu Vs The Sub Registrar

A.Sodalaimuthu Vs The Sub Registrar

S Muniasamy Vs The State Tax officer

M.v.Muthuramalingam, Vs The Inspector General of Registration / Chief Controlling Revenue Officer

Thangaswamy P Vs The State Tax Officer