Tvl.Indobogheragro Chemicals Vs Assistant Commissioner

PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records on the files of the Respondent herein in GSTIN/ 33AAFFC8644K1Z9 in FORM GST DRC-07 with Reference No. ZD331223253072Z dated 29.12.2023 along with order in original Order-In-Original Sl.No.15/2023-GST AC-SLM DIV I bearing DIN 20231259XP00000D200 dated 15.12.2023 and also consequential rectification order bearing DIN 20240659XP000000B45A dated 13.06.2024 and quash the same

¶12

For Petitioner(s): Mr.N Chandirasekar For Respondent(s): Mr.R.P.Pragadish, Sr.Standing Counsel and Mr.J.Harikrishnan, Jr.Standing Counsel

¶13

Page1 of 6

¶14

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

¶15

WP No. 11749 of 2026

¶16

ORDER

¶17

Mr.R.P.Pragadish, learned Senior Standing Counsel takes notice for the

¶18

Respondent.

¶19

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 Senior

¶20

Standing Counsel for the Respondent.

¶21

In this Writ Petition, the Petitioner has challenged the impugned Order in Form GST DRC-07 dated 29.12.2023, which was preceded by a Show Cause Notice dated 24.03.2023 wherein the Petitioner was called upon to file a reply and to appear for a personal hearing. However, the Petitioner did not take advantage of the same and, has thus suffered the impugned Order dated 29.12.2023. The Impugned Order has been subsequently rectified vide Order dated 16.06.2024, which is also challenged in the present Writ Petition.

¶22

It is noticed that the limitation for filing an appeal under Section 107 of the respective GST Enactments, 2017 against the impugned Order has already expired long before. However, the present Writ Petition has been filed only on 23.03.2026.

¶23

__________ Page2 of 6

¶24

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

¶25

WP No. 11749 of 2026

¶26

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

¶27

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

¶28

The learned counsel for the Petitioner has also made the following endorsement to that effect in the Court bundle which has been extracted

¶29

hereunder:-

¶30

“Since appeal not filed within time, liberty may given to file the appeal on condition to pay 50% disputed tax”

¶31

Recording the above consent given by the Petitioner, the case is remitted back to the Appellate Authority 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.

¶32

In case the Petitioner complies with the above stipulations, the Appellate Authority shall proceed to pass a final order on merits and in accordance with law in its own turn, without any reference to the issue of limitation. 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.

¶33

Page3 of 6

¶34

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

¶35

WP No. 11749 of 2026

¶36

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.

¶37

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

¶38