M Raghavan Vs The Deputy state tax officer

Prayer: This Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the constitution of India calling for the records culminating Order No. ZD3308241506691 dated 19.08.2024 passed by the 1st respondent and quash the same as per se illegal

¶16

1/6

¶17

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

¶18

For Petitioner : Mr.K. Chandrasekaran For Respondents : Mr.C.Harsharaj, Special Government Pleader

¶19

W.P.No.10550 of 2026

¶20

ORDER

¶21

Mr.C.Harsharaj,Special Government Pleader takes notice for the Respondents.

¶22

This Writ Petition is being disposed of at the stage of admission itself with the consent of the learned counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Government Advocate for the Respondents.

¶23

In this Writ Petition, the Petitioner has challenged the impugned Order dated 19.08.2024 , which was preceded by a Show Cause Notice in GST DRC-01 dated 2 3.05.2024 whe rein the Petitioner was called upon to appear for personal hearing. However, the Petitioner had not taken advantage of the same and thus, suffered the impugned Order dated 19.08.2024 .

¶24

It is noticed that the limitation for filing an appeal under Section

¶25

107 of the respective GST enactments, 2017 against the impugned Order has

¶26

2/6

¶27

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

¶28

W.P.No.10550 of 2026

¶29

already expired. The present Writ Petition has been filed only on 06.03.2026 .

¶30

At this stage, the learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that

¶31

the Petitioner is willing to pre-deposit 50% of the disputed tax as a condition for denovo adjudication.

¶32

6. The learned counsel for the Petitioner has also made an

¶33

following endorsement to that effect in the Court bundle which has been extracted hereunder:-

¶34

“The Petitioner undertakes to deposit the disputed tax 50% of the sum.”

¶35

Under similar circumstances, Orders have been quashed and

¶36

cases have been remitted back to the First Respondent 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 in approaching the Court. I do not find any reason to take a different view in this case.

¶37

Therefore, to balance the interest of both parties viz., the Assessee and the Revenue, the case is remitted back to the First Respondent

¶38

3/6

¶39

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

¶40

W.P.No.10550 of 2026

¶41

to pass a fresh order on merits subject to the Petitioner depositing 50% of the disputed tax in cash or from the Petitioner's Electronic Cash Register within a period of thirty (30) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶42

Within such time, the Petitioner shall also file a reply to the

¶43

Show Cause Notice in GST DRC-01 dated 23.05.2024 together with requisite documents to substantiate the case by treating the impugned Order dated

¶44

19.08.2024 as an addendum to the Show Cause Notice dated 2 3.05.2024 .

¶45

In case the Petitioner complies with the above stipulations, the First 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 if any, shall also stand automatically vacated.

¶46

It is made clear that bank attachment shall be lifted subject to the Petitioner depositing 50% of the disputed tax as ordered above and the Petitioner not being in arrears of any other amount for any other tax period barring the amount demanded under the impugned Order.

¶47

4/6

¶48

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

¶49

W.P.No.10550 of 2026

¶50

In case the Petitioner fails to comply with any of the stipulations,

¶51

the first Respondent is at liberty to proceed against the Petitioner to recover the tax in accordance with law as if this Writ Petition was dismissed in limine today.

¶52