Thirumala Ginning Mills v. The State Tax Officer

ORDER The petitioner is before this Court against the impugned Order dated

19.02.2025 passed by the respondent for the financial year 2020-2021.

¶2By the impugned order, the demand proposed in the Show Cause Notice in DRC-01 dated 25.11.2024 was confirmed, after issuing a reminder dated 22.01.2025 for a personal hearing.

¶3It appears that the petitioner also appeared for the personal hearing on 18.02.2025 and that on the following day, the impugned order was passed.

¶4The respondent has been found to be at fault in passing the impugned order. The impugned has been passed without considering the petitioner's defence.

¶5The learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the petitioner is willing to deposit 10% of the disputed tax confirmed by the impugned Order dated 19.02.2025.

¶6Considering the same and following the consistent view taken by this Court under similar circumstances, this case is remitted back to the respondent to pass a fresh order on merits, subject to the petitioner depositing 10% 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.

¶7Within such time, the petitioner shall also file a reply to the impugned Show Cause Notice dated 25.11.2024 together with requisite documents to substantiate the case by treating the impugned Order dated

19.02.2025 as an addendum to the Show Cause Notice dated 25.11.2024.

¶8Subject to the petitioner complying with the above stipulations, the respondent shall proceed to pass a fresh order on merits as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of three (3) months of such reply / pre-deposit. It is needless to state that, before passing any such order, the petitioner shall be heard.

¶9Bank attachment, if any, shall also stand automatically raised/vacated, subject to the petitioner complying with the above stipulations.

¶10It is made clear that bank attachment shall be lifted subject to the deposit of 10% 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.

¶11In 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.

¶12This Writ Petition is disposed of with the above directions. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.

28.01.2026 raja To The State Tax Officer, Harur Assessment Circle, Harur, Dharmapuri.

C.SARAVANAN, J. raja

28.01.2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 28.01.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN and W.M.P.No.25041 of 2025 M/s. Thirumala Ginning Mills Rep. by its Proprietor, Sri Masilamani Vigneswaran, No.60, Kambainallur, Subramaniyar Koil Street, Harur - 635 202. ... Petitioner Vs. The State Tax Officer, Harur Assessment Circle, Harur, Dharmapuri. ... Respondent Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the respondent herein GSTIN:33ATSPV7298Q1Z5/2020-21 and quash the impugned order dated 19.02.2025 passed therein. For Petitioner : Mr.B.Raveendran For Respondent : Ms.Amirta Poonkodi Dinakaran Government Advocate