M/S Meenakshi Textiles v. The Assistant Commissioner (St)-1 (Fac)

ORDER The petitioner is before this Court challenging the impugned order, after the appeal preferred by the petitioner on 24.12.2025 against the order dated

14.08.2025 came to be rejected by the second respondent vide order dated

16.07.2026 on the ground of limitation.

¶2The facts on record indicates that the petitioner had deposited 10% of the disputed tax at the time of filing the appeal.

¶3At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had already deposited 10% of the disputed tax at the time of filing the appeal and that the petitioner is now willing to pre-deposit a further 15% of the disputed tax as a condition for de novo adjudication.

¶4The learned counsel for the petitioner has also made an endorsement to that effect in the Court Bundle, which is extracted hereunder:- "Petitioner undertakes to pay 15% of the disputed tax."

¶5In view of the above, the impugned order is quashed and the case is remitted back to the first respondent to pass a fresh order, subject to the Page3 of 5 petitioner depositing 25% of the disputed tax in cash through the petitioner's Electronic Cash Ledger within a period of thirty (30) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Any amount already paid towards the said pre-deposit shall be duly adjusted.

¶6Within the aforesaid period, the petitioner shall also file a reply to the Show Cause Notice in DRC-01 dated 19.03.2025, together with the requisite documents to substantiate the case, by treating the impugned order dated

14.08.2025 as an addendum to the Show Cause Notice dated 19.03.2025.

¶7In the event of the petitioner complying with the above stipulations, the first 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 from the date of receipt of such reply / completion of the pre-deposit.

¶8In the event of the petitioner failing to comply with any of the above stipulations, the first respondent shall be at liberty to proceed against the petitioner for recovery of the tax in accordance with law, as if this Writ Petition had been dismissed in limine today.

¶9Needless to state, before passing any such order, the first respondent shall give due notice to the petitioner. Page4 of 5

¶10This Writ Petition stands disposed of with the above observations. No costs. Consequently, the connected Writ Miscellaneous Petition is closed. 11-08-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order smn2 To

¶1The Assistant Commissioner (ST)-1 (FAC) Commercial Tax Building, Rajapalayam.

¶2The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT) Commercial Tax Building, Virudhunagar. Page5 of 5

C.SARAVANAN, J. smn2 11-08-2026

Page1 of 5 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 11-08-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C. SARAVANAN and W.M.P.(MD)No.16983 of 2026 M/s MEENAKSHI TEXTILES Rep. by its Partner R. Ammaiyappan, GSTIN. 33AABFM5326J1ZG, 4/11, Seithur Road, Dhalavaipuram, Rajapalayam. ..Petitioner(s) Vs 1. The Assistant Commissioner (ST)-1 (FAC) Commercial Tax Building, Rajapalayam. 2. The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT) Commercial Tax Building, Virudhunagar. ..Respondent(s) Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records in the impugned Order in form DRC 07 passed by the 1st respondent in GSTIN. 33AABFM5326J1ZG/2021-22 dated 14.08.2025 followed by consequential order passed by the 2nd respondent in Form GST APL 02 Ref. No. ZD330726135053N dated 16.07.2026 and quash the same as it is without jurisdiction and clear violation of statutory provisions or pass such other or further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of this case and thus render justice. For Petitioner(s): Mr.S Karunakar Page2 of 5 For Respondent(s): Ms.P.Sudarkodinachiar Government Advocate (Taxes)