VoxJuris
Home › High Courts › Madras High Court 2026 › High Court of Madras

Uthandan Enterprises v. The Deputy Commissioner (Gst) (Appeal) (State Tax)

DISPOSED OF
Court
High Court of Madras
Decided
21 July 2026
Bench
C. Saravananauthor
Case no.
WP(MD) 20537/2026

Judgment

ORDER M/s.P.Sudarkodi Natchiyar, learned Counsel for State of TN, takes notice for the respondents.

¶2This Writ Petition is being disposed of at the time of admission with the consent of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for State of TN for the respondents.

¶3In this Writ Petition, the petitioner has challenged the Impugned Order in FORM GST DRC-07 bearing Ref.No. 33AMEPN6039Q1ZK/2021-2022 dated

30.12.2025 of the second respondent, which was preceded by a Show Cause Notice in DRC 01 dated 02.09.2025, wherein the petitioner was also called upon to appear for personal hearing. However, the petitioner had not taken advantage of the same and thus, suffered the impugned Order dated 30.12.2025.

¶4It 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 17.07.2026.

¶5At 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 de novo adjudication.

¶6The learned counsel for the petitioner has also made an endorsement to that effect in the Court Bundle, which is extracted hereunder:- "The petitioner ready to pay 25% of disputed tax amount."

¶7In view of the above, the impugned order dated 30.12.2025 stands quashed and the case is remitted back to the second respondent to pass a fresh order 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.

¶8Within such time, the petitioner shall also file a reply to the Show Cause Notice in DRC 01, dated 02.09.2025 together with requisite documents to substantiate the case by treating the impugned Order dated 30.12.2025 as an addendum to the Show Cause Notice dated 02.09.2025.

¶9In case the petitioner complies with the above stipulations, the second 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.

¶10In case the petitioner fails to comply with any of the stipulations, the respondents are 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.

¶11Needless to state, before passing any such order, the first respondent shall give due notice to the petitioner.

¶12This Writ Petition stands disposed of with the above observations. No costs. Consequently, connected Writ Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. Index : Yes / No

21.07.2026 Internet : Yes / No apd To

¶1The Deputy Commissioner (GST) (Appeal) (State Tax), Combined Commercial Tax Offices, First Floor, Dr.MGS Bus Stand, Tirunelveli - 627 005.

¶2The Deputy State Tax Officer - 2, Palayamkottai Assessment Circle, Tirunelveli District.

C.SARAVANAN, J.

apd

21.07.2026

Case details

Parties and counsel

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 21.07.2026 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN and W.M.P.(MD) Nos.15211 & 15212 of 2026 Uthandan Enterprises, rep. by its Nambirajan ... Petitioner Vs 1. The Deputy Commissioner (GST) (Appeal) (State Tax), Combined Commercial Tax Offices, First Floor, Dr.MGS Bus Stand, Tirunelveli - 627 005. 2. The Deputy State Tax Officer - 2, Palayamkottai Assessment Circle, Tirunelveli District. ... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandmus to call for the records of the pertaining to the impugned order passed by the second respondent vide proceedings in GSTIN No. 33AMEPN6039Q1ZK/2021-2022 dated 30.12.2025 and quash the same as illegal and consequently, direct the second respondent to give an opportunity of personal hearing that may be fixed by this Court. For petitioner : Mr. P.Ponraj For respondents : M/s.P.Sudarkodi Natchiyar Counsel for State of TN *****

Source: High Court of Madras, through the eCourts High Court services, via the Indian High Court Judgments open dataset by Dattam Labs (CC BY 4.0). Text was extracted from the official PDF and may contain conversion errors. Check the official PDF before relying on it.