Quashed

Tvl.P Vellaiyan Contractor v. Assistant Commissioner (St)

Madras HC2 Jan 2026WP/50011/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging an order under the GST regime passed due to the petitioner's failure to appear. The Court quashed the order, remitted the matter for a fresh decision, and directed the petitioner to deposit 25% of the disputed tax within 30 days.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 28.02.2025 is quashed and the matter is remitted to the respondent to pass a fresh order on merits.

Tvl.P Vellaiyan Contractor Vs Assistant Commissioner (St) — GST and Indirect Tax | Madras HC (2026)

¶1

W.P.No.50011 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 02.01.2026

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN

¶6

W.P.No.50011 of 2025

¶7

and

¶8

W.M.P.Nos.55942 and 55944 of 2025

¶9

Tvl. P.Vellaiyan Contractor (Represented by its Proprietor Mr.Sathish Kumar)

¶10

... Petitioner

¶11

Vs.

¶12

Assistant Commissioner (ST), Omalur Assessment Circle, Omalur, Salem.

¶13

... Respondent

¶14

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records on the file of the respondent herein in FORM GST DRC-07 with Reference No. ZD3302253012921 dated 28.02.2025 in GSTIN : 33ANMPV1479M1Z8 dated 28.02.2025, for the tax period 2021-22 and quash the same.

¶15

For Petitioner : Mr.N.Chandrasekar

¶16

For Respondent : Mrs.K.Vasanthamala Government Advocate

¶17

1/6

¶18

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

¶19

W.P.No.50011 of 2025

¶20

ORDER

¶21

Mrs.K.Vasanthamala, learned Government Advocate takes notice for the Respondent.

¶22

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

¶23

itself 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 dated 28.02.2025, which was preceded by a Show Cause Notice in GST DRC-01 dated 10.09.2024 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 28.02.2025.

¶25

The Petitioner was also issued with Reminders on 28.12.2024, 27.01.2025 and 06.02.2025, which called upon the Petitioner to file a reply

¶26

and to appear for a personal hearing. The Petitioner however neither filed any reply nor appeared for the personal hearing fixed on 03.01.2025 30.01.2025 and on 10.02.2025. Thus, the impugned Order has been passed.

¶27

2/6

¶28

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

¶29

W.P.No.50011 of 2025

¶30

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

¶31

107 of the respective GST enactments, 2017 against the impugned Order has already expired. The present Writ Petition has been filed only on 18.12.2025.

¶32

Under similar circumstances, Orders have been quashed and 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.

¶33

Therefore, to balance the interest of both parties viz., the Assessee and the Revenue, 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 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 10.09.2024 together with requisite documents to substantiate the case by treating the impugned Order dated

¶35

3/6

¶36

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

¶37

W.P.No.50011 of 2025

¶38

28.02.2025 as an addendum to the Show Cause Notice dated 10.09.2024.

¶39

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.

¶40

It is made clear that bank attachment shall be lifted subject to the deposit of 25% of the disputed tax as ordered above and the Petitioner is not in arrears of any other amount barring the amount demanded under the impugned Order.

¶41

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.

¶42

4/6

¶43

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

¶44

W.P.No.50011 of 2025

¶45

Needless to state, before passing any such order, the Respondent shall give due notice to the Petitioner.

¶46

This Writ Petition stands disposed of with the above observations. No costs. Connected Writ Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

¶47

02.01.2026

¶48

mtl Neutral Citation : Yes / No

¶49

To:

¶50

Assistant Commissioner (ST), Omalur Assessment Circle, Omalur, Salem.

¶51

5/6

¶52

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

W.P.No.50011 of 2025

C.SARAVANAN, J.

mtl

W.P.No.50011 of 2025

and W.M.P.Nos.55942 and 55944 of 2025

¶58

02.01.2026

¶59

6/6

¶60

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

Tvl.P Vellaiyan Contractor v. Assistant Commissioner (St)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tvl.P Vellaiyan Contractor v. Assistant Commissioner (St)

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. Mag Products India Private Limited Vs the Deputy Commissioner (Appeal)(Ct)

M/S.Sri Mahalakshmi Store Vs the Deputy State Tax OFFICER-2/ Proper Officer

Tvl Baqir Brothers Vs The Deputy State Tax Officer II

Sri Amman and Co. Vs State Tax Officer

M/S.Hitech Cnc Engineering Vs the Deputy Commissioner(Commercial Tax)(Fac)

Rujo Engineering Private Limited Vs the State Tax Officer(St)