M/s.Kanagam Poultry Farm Vs The State Tax Officer (Intelligence)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 02.03.2026

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE C. SARAVANAN

¶5

W.P.No.6900 of 2026 and

¶6

W.M.P.No.7518 & 7521 of 2026

¶7

M/s.Kanagam Poultry Farm, Represented by its Proprietor, Mr.G.Elaiyappan, No.514, Ponnoli Nagar, Veppanatham Village, Varagur Post, Attur Taluk, Salem. Tamil Nadu – 636 112.

¶8

Petitioner

¶9

Vs

¶10

The State Tax Officer (Intelligence), (formerly known as Commercial Tax Officer) Attur (town) Circle, Thennangudipalayam, Attur - 636 108.

¶11

Respondent

¶12

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for

¶13

issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records relating to the impugned order in Reference No.ZD330624334546D/2024-2025 dated 27.06.2024 issued by the respondent and to quash the same.

¶14

For Petitioner: Mr.D.Vasanth For Respondent: Mrs.K.Vasanthamala, Government Pleader

¶15

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

¶16

ORDER

¶17

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

¶18

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

¶19

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

¶20

In this Writ Petition, the Petitioner has challenged the impugned Order dated 27.06.2024, which was preceded by a Show Cause Notice in GST DRC-01 dated 25.05.2024 wherein the Petitioner was called upon to appear for

¶21

personal hearing. However, the Petitioner had not taken advantage of the same and thus, suffered the impugned Order dated 27.06.2024.

¶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. The present Writ Petition has been filed only on 18.02.2026.

¶23

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

¶24

Petitioner is willing to pre-deposit 25% of the disputed tax as a condition for denovo adjudication.

¶25

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

¶26

The learned counsel for the Petitioner has also made an following

¶27

endorsement to that effect in the Court bundle which has been extracted

¶28

hereunder:-

¶29

“The petitioner undertakes to deposit 25% of the disputed tax amount.”

¶30

Under similar circumstances, Orders have been quashed and cases have

¶31

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 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 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.

¶33

Within such time, the Petitioner shall also file a reply to the Show Cause Notice in GST DRC-01 dated 25.05.2024 together with requisite documents to substantiate the case by treating the impugned Order dated 27.06.2024 as an addendum to the Show Cause Notice dated 25.05.2024.

¶34

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

¶35

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.

¶36

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.

¶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