Chennaiyachetti Ravi Vs The Assistant Commissioner(St)

¶1

W.P.No.3583 of 2026

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 06.02.2026

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN

¶6

W.P.No.3583 of 2026

¶7

and W.M.P.No.4013 of 2026

¶8

Chennaiyachetti Ravi Proprietor of Tvl.Uma Collection, No.96, 97, Sri Mahalakshmi Textiles Market, B.T.Market Road, Bargur, Krishnagiri – 635 104. ... Petitioner

¶9

Vs.

¶10

The Assistant Commissioner (St), Krishnagiri – II Circle, Krishnagiri.

¶11

... Respondent

¶12

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the Respondent in DRC – 07 Ref No.ZD330224069094M dated 12.02.2024 and quash the same as illegal and consequentially direct the Respondent to remand back for fresh consideration on merits after considering the explanation for the Petitioner.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.V.Kaushik Narayanan

¶14

For Respondent : Mr.V.Prashanth Kiran Government Advocate

¶15

1/6

¶16

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

¶17

W.P.No.3583 of 2026

¶18

ORDER

¶19

Mr.V.Prashanth Kiran, learned Government Advocate takes notice

¶20

for the Respondent.

¶21

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

¶22

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 12.02.2024, which was preceded by a Show Cause Notice in GST DRC-01 dated 14.12.2023 wherein 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 12.02.2024.

¶24

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. The present Writ Petition has been filed only on 17.12.2025.

¶25

2/6

¶26

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

¶27

W.P.No.3583 of 2026

¶28

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

¶29

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

¶30

Under similar circumstances, Orders have been quashed and

¶31

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.

¶32

Therefore, to balance the interest of both parties viz., the

¶33

Assessee and the Revenue, the case is remitted back to the Respondent 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.

¶34

Within such time, the Petitioner shall also file a reply to the Show Cause Notice in GST DRC-01 dated 14.12.2023 together with requisite documents to substantiate the case by treating the impugned Order dated 12.02.2024 as an addendum to the Show Cause Notice dated 14.12.2023.

¶35

3/6

¶36

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

¶37

W.P.No.3583 of 2026

¶38

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 shall also stand automatically vacated.

¶39

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.

¶40

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.

¶41