Nayam AssociatesRep. by its Proprietor G.MohankumarGSTIN: 33 v. The Assistant Commissioner (ST)Hosur North-II Circle

__________Page1 of 6IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 24.04.2026CORAMTHE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C. SARAVANANW.P.No.16354 of 2026andW.M.P.Nos.17572 & 17573 of 2026 Nayam AssociatesRep. by its Proprietor G.MohankumarGSTIN: 33CXMPM8775M1ZI3/159, Gummanoor Road, Near EB OfficeSamalpallam, KrishnagiriTamil Nadu - 635 115...PetitionerVs1.The Assistant Commissioner (ST)Hosur North-II Circle, Krishnagiri, Tamil Nadu.

The Manager, Tamilnadu Mercantile Bank, Chappadi, ShoolagiriKrishnagiri - 635 117...RespondentsPRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the 1st respondent relating to the impugned order DRC-07 Reference No: ZD331025123336W dated 13.10.2025 issued by the 1st respondent and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and thereby consequently, direct the 2nd respondent TO LIFT THE ATTACHMENT OF THE BANK ACCOUNT which was maintained in the 2nd respondent’s bank (Current Account No. 439509566178525). https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis __________Page2 of 6For Petitioner :Mr.Mohammed Yaseen M.GFor Respondents :Mr.C.Harsharaj, Special Government Pleader.ORDERMr.C.Harsharaj, learned Special Government Pleader takes notice for the Respondents. 2. This Writ Petition is being disposed of at the stage of admission itself with the consent of the learned counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Special Government Pleader for the Respondents.

In this Writ Petition, the Petitioner has challenged the impugned Order dated 13.10.2025, which was preceded by a Show Cause Notice in GST DRC-01 dated 03.06.2025 wherein the Petitioner was called upon to appear for personal hearing. However, the Petitioner had not taken advantage of the same and thus, suffered the impugned Order dated 13.10.2025.

It 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 26.03.2026. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis __________Page3 of 65. At 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 denovo adjudication.

The learned counsel for the Petitioner has also made an endorsement to that effect in the Court bundle which has been extracted hereunder:-“I endorse to pay the 25% of the Tax Demand subject to the verification of the already Recovered Amount by the Respondent.”

Recording the above submission, the case is remitted back to the Respondent to pass a fresh order on merits subject to the Petitioner depositing 25% of the disputed tax in cash or 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.8. Needless to state, any amount recovered from the Petitioner / paid by the Petitioner, towards the tax liability confirmed vide impugned order, shall be adjusted towards the aforesaid pre-deposit of 25% as ordered above. This will be however subject to verification by the first Respondent.

Within such time, the Petitioner shall also file a reply to the Show Cause Notice in GST DRC-01 dated 03.06.2025 together with requisite documents to https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis __________Page4 of 6substantiate the case by treating the impugned Order dated 13.10.2025 as an addendum to the Show Cause Notice dated 03.06.2025.

In case the Petitioner complies with the above stipulations, the 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. Subject to the Petitioner complying with the above stipulations, the attachment of the bank account of the Petitioner if any, shall also stand automatically vacated.