Facts of the Case

Tvl. Well Kamraj Pick and Pay, represented by its Managing Partner Moses J. Nadar, was subjected to proceedings by the Commercial Tax Officer, Tenkasi, for the tax period 2017-18. The demand was preceded by notices in DRC-01A dated 30.01.2024 and DRC-01 dated 24.07.2024, followed by three personal hearing notices dated 24.08.2024, 04.10.2024 and 04.11.2024. The petitioner did not respond to any of these communications, resulting in a final order confirming the demand, recorded in Form GST DRC-07 bearing Reference No. ZD331124028837G along with the detailed order under ARN No. AD330124052590K, both dated 06.11.2024. The petitioner challenged this order before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court by way of a writ of certiorari.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether a GST demand confirmed ex-parte for want of any response to DRC-01A/DRC-01 notices and personal hearing notices could be quashed and remitted on a conditional pre-deposit.
  2. Whether such relief, already extended by the Court in similar cases, ought to be extended here as well.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • The petitioner did not dispute having failed to respond to the notices, but sought an opportunity for de novo adjudication.
  • Reliance was placed on the consistent practice of the Court in quashing similar orders on terms of a 25% pre-deposit of the disputed tax.

Respondent's Arguments

  • The Government Advocate appeared and consented to disposal of the petition at the admission stage on the same terms as similarly situated petitioners.

Court Order / Findings

  • The Court noted that under similar circumstances it has consistently come to the rescue of assessees by quashing the impugned order on terms of a 25% pre-deposit, and found no reason to take a different view.
  • The impugned order dated 06.11.2024 was quashed and the matter remitted for fresh orders, subject to the petitioner depositing 25% of the disputed tax in cash from its Electronic Cash Register within thirty days.
  • Within the same period, the petitioner must file a reply to the DRC-01 notice dated 24.07.2024, treating the quashed order as an addendum to that notice.
  • On compliance, the respondent shall pass fresh orders on merits, preferably within three months, after hearing the petitioner.
  • Failure to comply with the conditions entitles the department to proceed against the petitioner as if the writ petition were dismissed in limine.

Important Clarification

  • This order confirms that the Madurai Bench treats the 25% pre-deposit condition as the standard route to restore an assessee's opportunity of hearing in Section 73 proceedings that went unanswered, rather than compelling recourse to a statutory appeal.

Sections Involved

  • Form GST DRC-01A and DRC-01, CGST Rules, 2017 – pre-notice intimation and show cause notice preceding demand.
  • Form GST DRC-07, CGST Rules, 2017 – summary of the order creating demand.
  • Article 226, Constitution of India – writ jurisdiction invoked.

Decision – In Favour of

Disposed of with directions; conditionally in favour of the Assessee, subject to compliance with the 25% pre-deposit and reply timelines.

Case Details

  • Court: Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court
  • Case No.: W.P.(MD) No. 23116 of 2025 and W.M.P.(MD) Nos.18176 & 18177 of 2025
  • Coram: Justice C. Saravanan
  • Date of Order: 26.08.2025

Link to Download the Order

Click here to view/download the full order

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.