Facts of the Case

M/s. Raamdev Logistics filed a writ petition before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court challenging the impugned order dated 22.12.2025 passed by the first respondent, the State Tax Officer, Tuticorin-III Circle.

The petitioner also sought a consequential direction to the respondents to defreeze or remove the attachment of its bank account maintained with HDFC Bank Ltd., North Car Street, Tuticorin.

The petitioner principally challenged the impugned order on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice and non-availing of opportunity.

Upon hearing the learned Government Standing Counsel and examining the records, the High Court noted that a show cause notice had been issued on 10.07.2025.

The petitioner did not immediately file a reply to the show cause notice.

Thereafter, following the personal hearing stage, further notices were issued on:

  • 03.10.2025
  • 25.10.2025
  • 21.11.2025

The petitioner ultimately filed its reply belatedly on 19.12.2025.

However, the petitioner could not avail the opportunities for personal hearing. The High Court expressly recorded that the delay was on the part of the petitioner.

Despite this, after considering the submissions made regarding the merits of the discrepancies and the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the High Court formed the view that one further opportunity could be granted to the petitioner, subject to the condition of depositing 25% of the disputed tax amount.

Issues Involved

The principal issues arising before the Madras High Court were:

  1. Whether the impugned GST assessment order dated 22.12.2025 warranted interference on the ground of principles of natural justice and non-availing of opportunity.
  2. Whether the petitioner should be granted another opportunity despite not filing an immediate reply to the show cause notice dated 10.07.2025.
  3. Whether the petitioner’s belated reply dated 19.12.2025 and inability to avail personal hearing opportunities justified remand for fresh consideration.
  4. Whether the fact that delay was attributable to the petitioner prevented the High Court from granting equitable relief.
  5. Whether a fresh opportunity could be granted subject to a protective condition requiring deposit of 25% of the disputed tax amount.
  6. Whether the bank account freezing should continue after the impugned assessment order was set aside subject to compliance with the deposit condition.
  7. Whether the petitioner should be permitted to file additional reply and supporting documents during fresh adjudication.

Petitioner’s Arguments

The petitioner primarily challenged the impugned order dated 22.12.2025 on the ground of principles of natural justice and non-availing of opportunity.

The petitioner sought setting aside of the impugned assessment order and consequential relief regarding the freezing or attachment of its bank account.

The petitioner’s case was that it should be afforded a proper opportunity to contest the assessment proceedings.

Although the reply had been filed belatedly on 19.12.2025 and the personal hearing opportunities could not be availed, submissions were made before the High Court concerning the merits of the discrepancies.

The petitioner therefore sought interference with the impugned order and an opportunity for fresh consideration of the matter.

Respondents’ Arguments

The respondents were represented by the learned Government Standing Counsel.

The record before the High Court showed that:

  • a show cause notice had been issued on 10.07.2025;
  • the petitioner did not immediately file a reply;
  • notices were subsequently issued on 03.10.2025, 25.10.2025 and 21.11.2025;
  • the petitioner’s reply was filed only belatedly on 19.12.2025; and
  • the petitioner could not avail the opportunities for personal hearing.

The High Court specifically acknowledged that the delay was attributable to the petitioner.

The judgment does not record any broader or separate detailed argument by the respondents beyond the proceedings, record and submissions considered by the Court. Accordingly, no additional contention has been attributed to the Revenue.

Court’s Findings / Order

The Madras High Court examined the records and expressly found that the petitioner had not immediately responded to the show cause notice dated 10.07.2025.

The Court also noted that subsequent notices had been issued on 03.10.2025, 25.10.2025 and 21.11.2025.

The reply was filed belatedly only on 19.12.2025.

The Court further recorded that the petitioner could not avail the personal hearing opportunities and that the delay was on the part of the petitioner.

However, after considering:

  • the submissions relating to the merits of the discrepancies; and
  • the overall facts and circumstances of the case,

the High Court held that another opportunity could be granted to the petitioner.

The relief was expressly made conditional upon deposit of 25% of the disputed tax amount.

The writ petition was accordingly disposed of on the following terms:

  1. Deposit of 25% disputed tax amount: The petitioner shall, within four weeks from the date of receipt of the web copy of the order, deposit 25% of the disputed tax amount.
  2. Assessment order to stand set aside upon deposit: Upon such deposit, the impugned order dated 22.12.2025 shall stand set aside.
  3. Remand to first respondent: The matter shall stand remanded to the file of the first respondent, namely the State Tax Officer, Tuticorin-III Circle.
  4. Additional reply and documents permitted: The petitioner shall be entitled to file additional reply and documents.
  5. Fresh consideration: The first respondent shall consider the matter afresh and pass orders in accordance with law.
  6. Bank account freezing to be raised: Since the assessment order itself was being set aside, the freezing of the bank account shall stand raised upon deposit of 25% of the amount as directed by the Court.
  7. No costs: No order as to costs was passed.
  8. Connected miscellaneous petition closed: The connected miscellaneous petition was closed.

Important Clarification

The High Court did not hold that the petitioner was free from responsibility for the delay in participating in the assessment proceedings.

On the contrary, the Court expressly recorded that the delay was on the part of the petitioner.

The judgment is therefore significant because the relief was not granted on a finding that the Department had provided no opportunity whatsoever. The record showed that multiple notices had been issued and that the petitioner had filed its reply belatedly.

Nevertheless, considering the submissions concerning the merits of the discrepancies and the overall facts and circumstances, the Court granted another opportunity subject to a substantial condition of depositing 25% of the disputed tax amount.

The impugned assessment order does not stand set aside unconditionally. Under the express terms of the judgment, it shall stand set aside upon the petitioner making the required 25% deposit.

Similarly, the freezing of the petitioner’s bank account is linked to compliance with the same condition. The Court directed that the freezing shall stand raised upon deposit of 25% of the disputed amount as ordered.

Another important clarification is that the uploaded judgment does not specify the substantive GST section under which the impugned assessment order was passed. Therefore, this summary deliberately avoids inserting or assuming any unrecorded section.

Key Legal Takeaway

The decision demonstrates that the High Court may grant a further opportunity in GST assessment proceedings even where delay is attributable to the taxpayer, provided the overall circumstances and submissions on the merits justify reconsideration.

However, such equitable relief may be made subject to a substantial condition protecting Revenue interests.

In the present case, the Madras High Court balanced both considerations by:

  • acknowledging that the delay was attributable to the petitioner;
  • granting a fresh opportunity;
  • requiring deposit of 25% of the disputed tax amount;
  • setting aside the assessment order only upon such deposit;
  • remanding the matter for fresh adjudication;
  • permitting additional reply and documents; and
  • directing lifting of bank account freezing upon compliance with the 25% deposit condition.

Sections / Legal Provisions Involved

Article 226 of the Constitution of India – The writ petition was filed invoking the constitutional writ jurisdiction of the High Court.

GST Assessment Proceedings – The petitioner challenged the impugned assessment order dated 22.12.2025 concerning GSTIN 33AJFPV4357B1ZB for the period 2021-2022.

Principles of Natural Justice – The principal challenge raised by the petitioner concerned alleged non-availing of effective opportunity and inability to utilise personal hearing opportunities.

Bank Account Attachment / Freezing Consequential to Assessment Order – The petitioner also sought defreezing or removal of attachment over its bank account maintained with HDFC Bank Ltd., North Car Street, Tuticorin.

Important Section Clarification: The judgment, as reproduced in the uploaded order, does not expressly identify a specific substantive section of the CGST/TNGST Act under which the impugned assessment order dated 22.12.2025 was passed. Therefore, no unmentioned GST section has been attributed to the Court or inserted into this summary.


Link to download the order -

https://mytaxexpert.co.in/uploads/1783058064_553compressed.pdf

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.