Muthoos Enterprises Vs The State Tax Officer

The State Tax Officer, (Formerly Known as Commercial Tax Officer) Koyambedu Assessment Circle 5^th Floor, No.1 PAJAM Annexure Building, Greams Road, Chennai – 600 006.

¶13

The Deputy Commissioner (ST), GST-Appeal – Chennai Central No.1, PAJAM Main Building, 2^nd Floor, Greams Road, Chennai – 600 006. ... Respondents

¶14

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the impugned order in Reference No. ZD330725176036C/2023-24

¶15

1/6

¶16

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

¶17

W.P.No.11065 of 2026

¶18

Dated:17.07.2025 passed by the 1^st Respondent and the consequential impugned rejection order namely Form GST APL-02 Dated: 14.01.2026 passed by the 2^nd respondent, and quash the same as arbitrary, illegal.

¶19

For Petitioner : M/s. V. Vijayalakshmi

¶20

For Respondents : Ms.Amirtha Poonkodi Dinakaran Government Advocate

¶21

ORDER

¶22

Ms.Amirtha Poonkodi Dinakaran, learned Government Advocate, takes notice for the respondents.

¶23

With the consent of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the

¶24

learned Government Advocate for the respondents, this writ petition is being disposed of at the time of admission.

¶25

In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the impugned Order dated 17.07.2025 passed by the 1^st respondent, along with the impugned Order dated 14.01.2026 passed by the 2^nd respondent, whereby the petitioner’s appeal (filed on 17.11.2025) against the Order dated 17.07.2025 was rejected on the ground of limitation.

¶26

2/6

¶27

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

¶28

W.P.No.11065 of 2026

¶29

It is noticed that there is a marginal delay of one day beyond the condonable period of limitation in filing the appeal.

¶30

At the time of filing the appeal, the petitioner deposited 10% of the

¶31

disputed tax as a mandatory pre-deposit. This writ petition has been filed on 11.03.2026.

¶32

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner will deposit another 15% of the disputed tax, over and above the 10% already deposited, as a condition for de novo adjudication. The learned

¶33

counsel also made an endorsement in the bundle to the following effect:

¶34

“On instructions from the Petitioner (my client), I have given consent to pay Additional 15% (Apart from 10% Pre-deposit at the time of filing appeal) as a condition for remand.”

¶35

Recording the same, the case is remitted back to the 1^st respondent to pass a fresh order, subject to the petitioner depositing 15% of the disputed tax (in addition to the 10% already deposited) confirmed by the impugned order, either in cash or from the petitioner's Electronic Credit Ledger, within a period of thirty (30) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶36

3/6

¶37

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

¶38

W.P.No.11065 of 2026

¶39

Within such time, the petitioner shall also file a reply to the impugned Show Cause Notice dated 23.04.2025 together with requisite documents to substantiate the case by treating the impugned Order dated 17.07.2025 as an addendum to the said notice.

¶40

Subject to the petitioner complying with the above stipulations, the

¶41

1^st respondent shall proceed to pass fresh order on merits and in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three (3) months of such reply / deposit.

¶42

It is needless to state that, before passing any such order, the petitioner shall be heard.

¶43

The attachment of the petitioner’s bank account shall also stand automatically raised/vacated, subject to the petitioner complying with the above stipulations.

¶44

It is made clear that bank attachment shall be lifted subject to the deposit of 15% 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

¶45

4/6

¶46

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

¶47

W.P.No.11065 of 2026

¶48

amount demanded under the impugned order.

¶49

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

¶50

the respondents are 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.

¶51