Tvl.Thirunavukarasu Contractor v. The State Tax officer

Madras HC26 Mar 2026WP(MD)/8049/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court, Madurai Bench; W.P(MD)No.8049 of 2026; D. Bharatha Chakravarthy J.; GST ex-parte final order 19.01.2026 (GSTIN 33APBPT6167R1Z4/2023-24); State Tax Officer Pudukkottai -II Assessment Circle; Tvl.Thirunavukarasu Contractor; show cause notice uploaded, no response; entire tax already paid; no 25% deposit condition; order set aside; remitted for fresh orders; Article 226; natural justice; no costs.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition ordered: impugned order dated 19.01.2026 set aside and matter remitted back to the respondent for passing fresh orders in accordance with law; petitioner to appear, file reply and produce documentary evidence; no costs; connected miscellaneous petition W.M.P(MD)No.6587 of 2026 closed. ¶¶22

Tvl.Thirunavukarasu Contractor Vs The State Tax… — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶22

Issue for consideration

Whether the ex-parte final order dated 19.01.2026 passed by the State Tax Officer under GSTIN 33APBPT6167R1Z4/2023-24, which was issued without the petitioner availing the opportunity to respond to the uploaded show cause notice, should be quashed as illegal and in gross violation of principles of natural justice.

¶¶12

Court's answer

Since the entire tax liability had already been paid, the Court set aside the impugned order dated 19.01.2026 and remitted the matter back to the file of the respondent, granting the petitioner one more opportunity.

¶¶23

Ratio / Principle

The Court departed from its usual practice of imposing a 25% deposit condition for remitting the matter back, taking into account counsel's recorded submission that the entire tax liability had already been paid.

¶¶20

Key takeaways

The petitioner is directed to appear before the respondent without fail, file a reply and produce documentary evidence in support of its claim; the respondent authority is to pass fresh orders in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible.ratio¶¶28

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

GST – Ex-parte final order dated 19.01.2026 by the State Tax Officer, Pudukkottai -II Assessment Circle, under GSTIN 33APBPT6167R1Z4/2023-24 – Passed because petitioner did not respond to the uploaded show cause notice – Counsel's submission that the entire tax liability had already been paid was recorded – Court departs from usual 25% deposit condition, sets aside the impugned order and remits the matter to the respondent, granting one more opportunity – Petitioner to appear, file reply and produce documentary evidence; respondent to pass fresh orders in accordance with law expeditiously – No costs; connected W.M.P(MD)No.6587 of 2026 closed.

¶1

W.P(MD)No.8049 of 2026

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

Dated: 26.03.2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY

¶6

W.P(MD)No.8049 of 2026 and W.M.P(MD)No.6587 of 2026

¶7

Tvl.Thirunavukarasu Contractor Rep by its Proprietor S.Thirunavukarasu No.267, New Street, Vandanviduthy Pudukkottai-622 302

¶8

... Petitioner

¶9

Vs.

¶10

The State Tax Officer, Pudukkottai -II Assessment Circle, Pudukkottai.

¶11

...Respondent

¶12

Writ Petitions are filed under article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Ceriorari calling for the records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the respondent vide his order in GSTIN: 33APBPT6167R1Z4/2023-24 dated 19.01.2026 and quash the same as it is illegal and in gross violation of principles of natural justice.

¶13

For Petitioner :Mr.A.Satheesh Murugan For Respondent :Mr.R.Sureshkumar Additional Government Pleader

¶14

¶15

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

¶16

W.P(MD)No.8049 of 2026

¶17

ORDER

¶18

This writ petition is filed challenging the impugned orders dated 19.01.2026.

¶19

2.Upon perusal of the impugned orders, it can be seen that the petitioner did not avail the opportunity, when the show cause notice is uploaded and the final order was passed. Accordingly, the impugned orders came to be passed ex-parte.

¶20

3.Though usually this Court imposes a condition of 25% deposit for remitting the matter back, in this case, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the entire tax liability has already been paid. The same is recorded.

¶21

4.This Court, takes into account the said submission, is of the view

¶22

that one more opportunity can be granted to the petitioner. This writ petition is ordered on the following terms:

¶23

(i)Since the entire tax amount had already been paid, the impugned order dated 19.01.2026 shall stand set aside and the matter stands remitted back to the file of the respondent.

¶24

(ii)The petitioner shall appear before the respondent without fail and

¶25

¶26

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

¶27

W.P(MD)No.8049 of 2026

¶28

file such reply and produce such documentary evidence in support of his claim and the respondent authority shall pass orders fresh in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶29

26.03.2026

¶30

NCC:Yes/No Ns

¶31

To The State Tax Officer, Pudukkottai -II Assessment Circle, Pudukkottai.

¶32

¶33

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

¶34

W.P(MD)No.8049 of 2026

¶35