Partly allowed

Tvl Balaganesh Mart v. The Deputy State Tax Officer

Madras HC8 Apr 2026WP/12886/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging a GST order by recording the petitioner's consent to a 25% pre-deposit. It remitted the matter to the respondent for a fresh order on merits, directing the petitioner to file a reply to the original notice and deposit the tax within thirty days, subject to which bank attachment shall be vacated.

What did the court decide?

Matter remitted to respondent to pass fresh order on merits subject to petitioner depositing 25% disputed tax within 30 days and filing a reply to the original Show Cause Notice; bank attachment to be

Tvl Balaganesh Mart Vs The Deputy State Tax Officer — GST and Indirect Tax | Madras HC (2026)

¶1

WP No. 12886 of 2026

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 08-04-2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C. SARAVANAN

¶6

WP No.12886 of 2026

¶7

and

¶8

WMP.Nos.14084 and 14085 of 2026

¶9

Tvl BALAGANESH MART Rep by its Proprietor K.Susila Having place of business at No. 129,Marakkanam Road, Tindivanam-604 001.

¶10

..Petitioner(s)

¶11

¶12

The Deputy State Tax Officer Tindivanam Assessment Circle, Villupuram Zone, Cuddalore Division, Tamil Nadu.

¶13

..Respondent(s)

¶14

Prayer : 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 order dated 24.01.2025 bearing Reference No. 33AWPDS7832B1ZO/2020-21 issued by the Respondent for the tax period 2020 -21 and quash the same.

¶15

__________ Page1 of 6

¶16

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

¶17

WP No. 12886 of 2026

¶18

For Petitioner(s): Ms.Vaani Srikanth Iyer for Mr.Adithya Reddy

¶19

For Respondent(s): Mr.V.Prashanth Kiran Government Advocate

¶20

ORDER

¶21

Mr. V.Prashanth Kiran, the learned Government Advocate, takes notice on behalf of the Respondent.

¶22

This Writ Petition is being disposed of at the stage of admission itself

¶23

with the consent of the learned counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Government Advocate for the Respondent.

¶24

In this Writ Petition, the Petitioner has challenged the impugned Order

¶25

dated 24.01.2025 , which was preceded by a Show Cause Notice in GST DRC-01 dated 25.11.2024 wherein the Petitioner was called upon to file a reply and to appear for a personal hearing. However, the Petitioner did not taken advantage of the same and has thus, suffered the impugned Order dated 24.01.2025 .

¶26

__________ Page2 of 6

¶27

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

¶28

WP No. 12886 of 2026

¶29

It is noticed that the limitation for filing an appeal under Section 107 of

¶30

the respective GST enactments, 2017 against the impugned Order has already expired long before. The present Writ Petition has been filed only on

¶31

30.03.2026 .

¶32

At this stage, the learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner is willing to pre-deposit 25% of the disputed tax as a condition for denovo adjudication.

¶33

The learned counsel for the Petitioner has also made an endorsement

¶34

to that effect in the Court bundle, which is extracted hereunder:-

¶35

“ Counsel for Petitioner consent to deposit 25% condition”

¶36

Recording the above consent, the case is remitted back to the Respondent to pass a fresh order on merits subject to the Petitioner depositing 25% 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.

¶37

Page3 of 6

¶38

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

¶39

WP No. 12886 of 2026

¶40

Within such time, the Petitioner shall also file a reply to the Show Cause Notice in GST DRC-01 dated 25.11.2024 together with requisite documents to substantiate the case by treating the impugned Order dated 24.01.2025 as an addendum to the Show Cause Notice dated 25.11.2024.

¶41

In case the Petitioner complies with the above stipulations, the 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.

¶42

It is made clear that bank attachment shall be lifted subject to the Petitioner depositing 25% 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.

¶43

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.

¶44

Page4 of 6

¶45

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

¶46

WP No. 12886 of 2026

¶47

Needless to state, before passing any such order, the Respondent shall

¶48

give due notice to the Petitioner.

¶49

This Writ Petition stands disposed of with the above observations. No

¶50

costs. Connected Writ Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

¶51

08-04-2026

¶52

Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No

¶53

¶54

¶55

The Deputy State Tax Officer Tindivanam Assessment Circle, Villupuram Zone, Cuddalore Division, Tamil Nadu.

¶56

__________ Page5 of 6

¶57

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

WP No. 12886 of 2026

C.SARAVANAN, J.

WP No. 12886 of 2026

¶62

08-04-2026

¶63

__________ Page6 of 6

¶64

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

¶65

WP No. 12886 of 2026

¶66

__________ Page7 of 6

¶67

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

Tvl Balaganesh Mart v. The Deputy State Tax Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tvl Balaganesh Mart v. The Deputy State 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. Indian Entrance Automation Vs the Assistant Commissioner (St)

M/s. Rajkumar Muthusamy Vs Additional Director of Dggi

Tvl Selvi Oil Stores Vs The Assistant Commissioner (St)

Tvl. v K Tex Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

Gayathri Constructions Vs The Assistant Commissioner(St)(Fac)

Gayathiri Construction Vs Assistant Commissioner