Remanded

Sree Athanoor Amman Traders v. The Assistant Commissioner (St)

Madras HC2 Mar 2026WP/7681/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a Writ Petition challenging an impugned GST order passed due to the petitioner's non-attendance. With consent, the court remitted the matter for de novo adjudication on the condition of a 25% pre-deposit of disputed tax within 30 days, directing the lifting of bank attachment upon compliance.

What did the court decide?

The case remitted to the Respondent for fresh order on merits subject to petitioner depositing 25% of disputed tax within 30 days; bank attachment to be vacated on compliance.

Sree Athanoor Amman Traders Vs The Assistant… — GST and Indirect Tax | Madras HC (2026)

¶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.7681 of 2026 and W.M.P.No.8292 & 8294 of 2026

¶6

Sree Athanoor Amman Traders Represented by its Proprietor, Mr.Rajamurthi 10, East Street, Singhipuram, Salem, Tamil Nadu – 636 115.

¶7

Petitioner

¶8

¶9

The Assistant Commissioner (ST), (Also known as the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer) Ayyothyapattinam Circle, Salem.

¶10

Respondent

¶11

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records on the files of the respondent herein in GSTIN/33BPLPR3452J1ZL/2021-22 in Form GST DRC-07 in Order Reference No.ZD330325225445N dated 27.03.2025 and quash the same.

¶12

For Petitioner: Mr.Siri Chandana. K For Respondent: Mr.TNC.Kaushik, Additional Government Pleader, Government Advocate.

¶13

ORDER

¶14

Mr.TNC.Kaushik, Additional Government Pleader takes notice for the

¶15

Respondent.

¶16

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

¶17

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

¶18

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

¶19

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

¶20

dated 27.03.2025, which was preceded by a Show Cause Notice in GST DRC-01 dated 24.11.2024 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 27.03.2025.

¶21

The Petitioner was also issued with Reminders on 28.01.2025, 24.02.2025 and 11.03.2025, which called upon the Petitioner to file a reply and to appear for a personal hearing. The Petitioner however neither filed any reply nor appeared for the personal hearing fixed on 31.01.2025, 04.03.2025 and 17.03.2025. Thus, the impugned Order has been passed.

¶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 16.02.2026.

¶23

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

¶24

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

¶25

denovo adjudication.

¶26

The learned counsel for the Petitioner has also made an following endorsement to that effect in the Court bundle which has been extracted

¶27

hereunder:-

¶28

“The petitioner is ready and willing to pay 25% of the tax liability for de nova adjudication.”

¶29

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.

¶30

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

¶31

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.

¶32

Within such time, the Petitioner shall also file a reply to the Show Cause Notice in GST DRC-01 dated 24.11.2024 together with requisite documents to substantiate the case by treating the impugned Order dated

¶33

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

¶34

27.03.2025 as an addendum to the Show Cause Notice dated 24.11.2024.

¶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

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

¶39

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

¶40

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

¶41

02.03.2026

¶42

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

¶43

¶44

The Assistant Commissioner (ST), (Also known as the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer) Ayyothyapattinam Circle, Salem.

¶45

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

¶46

C.SARAVANAN J.

¶47

kmm

¶48

W.P.No.7681 of 2026 and W.M.P.No.8292 & 8294 of 2026

¶49

02.03.2026

¶50

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

Sree Athanoor Amman Traders v. The Assistant Commissioner (St)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sree Athanoor Amman Traders v. The 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

Senthil Kumar Gopinath Vs The Deputy State Tax OFFICER-2

M/S. Neelaveni Amman Agro Vs the Superintendent

Tvl .Human Resources Assist Vs Deputy State Tax Officer I

P.Andiappan Vs Assistant Commissioner

Om Sakthi Maligai Store Vs Deputy State Tax officer 1

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