M/s Akeel Leathers Vs The Assistant Commissioner (St)

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records relating to the impugned proceedings of the Respondent in GSTIN:33BXZPA7275C1ZA/2019-20, culminating in the Assessment Order dated 31.07.2025, passed under Section 74 of the CGST/TNGST Act, 2017, bearing Reference No.ZD330725370014M, along with the consequential Form GST DRC – 07 dated 31.07.2025 and quash all the impugned proceedings as passed contrary to the provisions of the CGST/TNGST Act, 2017, and against the principles of natural justice.

¶15

1/7

¶16

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

¶17

W.P.No.2819 of 2026

¶18

For Petitioner : Mr.Samuel Rupesh Rajkumar For Respondent : Mrs.K.Vasanthamala Government Advocate

¶19

ORDER

¶20

Mrs.K.Vasanthamala, learned Government Advocate takes notice

¶21

for the Respondent.

¶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 Respondent.

¶23

In this Writ Petition, the Petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 31.07.2025.

¶24

The case of the Petitioner is that in response to the Show Cause

¶25

Notice in Form GST DRC – 01, the Petitioner had replied on 21.02.2025.

¶26

However, the Petitioner’s reply has not been considered.

¶27

2/7

¶28

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

¶29

W.P.No.2819 of 2026

¶30

The learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that post facto the

¶31

entire CGST liability has been recovered and part of the SGST liability has been recovered for a sum of Rs.47,063/-.

¶32

The learned counsel for the Petitioner further submits that same

¶33

may be considered for a denovo adjudication by the Respondent.

¶34

The learned Government Advocate for the Respondent is however unable to confirm the same as to whether the entire CGST liability has been recovered and part of the SGST of Rs.47,063/- has been recovered.

¶35

I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Government Advocate for the Respondent.

¶36

Under similar circumstances, Orders have been quashed and

¶37

cases have been remitted back to the 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.

¶38

3/7

¶39

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

¶40

W.P.No.2819 of 2026

¶41

Following the consistent view taken by this Court under similar circumstances, the impugned order is quashed and 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.

¶42

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 31.07.2025 as an addendum to the Show Cause Notice dated 25.11.2024.

¶43

Needless to state, any amount recovered from the Petitioner / paid by the Petitioner, towards the tax liability confirmed vide impugned order, shall be adjusted towards the aforesaid pre-deposit of 25% as ordered above. This will be however subject to verification by the Respondent.

¶44

However, since 25% of the amount has already been recovered from the petitioner, no further amount shall be required to be deposited for the purpose of redoing the proceedings.

¶45

4/7

¶46

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

¶47

W.P.No.2819 of 2026

¶48

In case the Petitioner complies with the above stipulations, the

¶49

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 shall also stand automatically vacated.

¶50

It is made clear that bank attachment shall be lifted subject to

¶51

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.

¶52

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.

¶53