Tvl Ashta GoldPreviously Known as Tvl Rishab Distributor, Rep. by its Proprietor Naresh kumar v. 1.State Tax OfficerVepery Assessment Circle, Station No.1

W.P.No.22320 of 20253.The Branch ManagerKotak Mahindra Bank Limited No 3 Dass India Tower 2nd Line Beach Parrys Chennai 600001... RespondentsPrayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of Respondent in the Impugned Order in GSTIN-33ABFPN4298K1Z9 /2020-2021 and Summary of the Order in Reference No- ZD330225228244S, both dated 22.02.2025,issued by the 1st Respondent the Consequential Impugned Order in GSTIN-33ABFPN4298K1Z9 /2020-2021 and Order of Rejection of Application for Rectification bearing Reference No. Consequential Impugned Proceedings in Form GST DRC and 13 and GSTIN NO. 33ABFPN4298K1Z9/2020-21/DSTO-3 dated 27.05.2025 issued by the 2nd Respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the 1st Respondent to after affording a personal hearing to the petitionerFor Petitioner: Mr.M.HariharanFor Respondent: Ms.Amirtapoonkodidinakaran, GA for R1 & 22/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.22320 of 2025ORDERThis writ petition has been filed against the impugned assessment order dated 22.02.2025, impugned rejection order dated 03.03.2025 and the impugned demand notice dated 27.05.2025 passed by the respondents.2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in this case, the show cause notice was issued on 19.10.2022 and subsequently, a notice for personal hearing was issued on 21.01.2025. Thereafter, though a reply was filed by the petitioner on 27.01.2025, they sought for extension of time, to file additional documents, vide letter dated 19.02.2025. However, without considering the said request, the impugned order came to be passed by the respondent.3. Further, he would contend that no opportunity of personal hearing was granted to the petitioner prior to the passing of impugned order, which is a clear violation of principles of natural justice. 3/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.22320 of 2025Therefore, now, the petitioners request this Court for one more opportunity to present their case before the respondent.4. On the other hand, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent would submit that in this case, all the communications were duly served to the petitioner and sufficient opportunities were provided prior to the passing of impugned order. However, the petitioner had neither filed the relevant documents within time nor appeared for personal hearing before the respondent. Under these circumstances, without any other option, the respondent had proceeded to pass the impugned order. Hence, he requests this Court to dismiss the present petition.5. In reply, after some arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that now, the petitioner is willing to deposit 10% of disputed tax amount to the respondent and hence, he requests this Court to set aside the impugned order passed by the respondent.4/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.22320 of 20256. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent and also perused the entire materials on record.7. In the case on hand, the show cause notices and the notices with regard to personal hearing were issued by the respondent on various dates. After the receipt of said notices, the petitioner had filed their reply on 27.01.2025. However, they were unable to collect all the relevant documents and hence, they sought for extension of time, to file additional documents, vide letter dated 19.02.2025. Under these circumstances, without granting any such extension, the impugned order came to be passed by the respondent on 22.02.2025.8. In this case, there is no doubt that the respondent had provided number of opportunities to the petitioner. Normally, when the petitioner requested for extension of time to file their reply, the respondent was supposed to have acceded the said request by providing sufficient time 5/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.22320 of 2025for filing the reply. However, in this case, in spite of the request made by the petitioner, no time extension was provided by the respondent for filing the additional documents. Further, it was submitted that now, all the relevant documents were collected by the petitioner and the same have to be produced before the respondent to substantiate their case. When such being the case,this Court is of the considered view that it is just and necessary to grant an opportunity to the petitioner to file their reply to substantiate their case before the respondent. 9. In view of the above, this Court is inclined to set aside the impugned order dated 22.02.2025 passed by the 1st respondent. Accordingly, this Court passes the following order:-(i) The impugned order dated 22.02.2025 is set aside and the matters are remanded to the 1st respondent for fresh consideration on condition that the petitioner shall pay 10% of the disputed tax amount to the respondent within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The setting aside of the impugned order will take effect from the date of payment of the said amount.6/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.22320 of 2025(ii) The petitioner shall file their additional reply/objection along with the required documents, if any, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.(iii) Thereafter, the respondent shall consider the same and issue a 14 days clear notice, by fixing the date of personal hearing, to the petitioner and subsequently, pass a detailed speaking order on merits and in accordance with law, after hearing the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible. (iv) Considering the fact that the impugned order itself has been set aside, this Court is of the opinion that the attachment made on the bank account of the petitioner cannot survive any longer and hence, it is to be lifted. As a sequel, the 3rd respondent is directed to release the attachment, and de-freeze the bank account of the petitioner, immediately upon the production of proof with regard to the payment as stated above.7/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.22320 of 202510. With the above directions, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are also closed.02.07.2025Speaking/Non-speaking orderIndex : Yes / NoNeutral Citation : Yes / NonsaTo1.State Tax OfficerVepery Assessment Circle, Station No.1, (PAPJM) Annex Building, Room No.A-100, First Floor, Greams Road, Chennai-600 006.2.Assistant Commissioner (ST) (FAC)Vepery Assessment Circle Station No 1 (PAPJM) Annex Building Room No A 100 First Floor Greams Road Chennai 6000063.The Branch ManagerKotak Mahindra Bank Limited No 3 Dass India Tower 2nd Line Beach Parrys Chennai 6000018/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.22320 of 2025KRISHNAN RAMASAMY.J.,nsaW.P.No.22320 of 2025& W.M.P.Nos.25144 & 25151 of 202502.07.20259/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.22320 of 2025IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED :25.07.2025Coram The Honourable Mr.Justice Krishnan RamasamyW.P.No.22320 of 2025 Tvl Ashta GoldPreviously Known as Tvl Rishab Distributor, Rep. by its Proprietor Naresh kumar, 76 Vaigai Complex, Perianna Maistry Street Periamet Chennai 600003 ... Petitioner Vs. 1.State Tax OfficerVepery Assessment Circle, Station No.1, (PAPJM) Annex Building, Room No.A-100, First Floor, Greams Road, Chennai-600 006.2.Assistant Commissioner (ST) (FAC)Vepery Assessment Circle Station No 1 (PAPJM) Annex Building Room No A 100 First Floor Greams Road Chennai 6000063.The Branch ManagerKotak Mahindra Bank Limited No 3 Dass India Tower 2nd Line Beach Parrys Chennai 60000110/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.22320 of 2025For Petitioner : Mr.M.Hariharan For Respondents 1 and 2 : Ms..Amirta Poonkodi Dinakaran Government Advocate (T) Order This matter is listed today under the caption ''For Being Mentioned', at the instance of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that this Court while disposing of the Writ Petition No.22320 of 2025, vide order dated 02.07.2025, has imposed a condition, directing the petitioner to pay only 10% of the disputed tax, however, due to an inadvertent error, at para No.9 of the said order, 10% of the disputed tax has been wrongly mentioned as 25% and therefore, requests this Court to rectify the said error. 3. Ms.Amirta Poonkodi Dinakaran, learned Government Advocate respondents 1 and 2 would submit that subject to verification, orders may be passed. 4. In the light of the above, Para No.9 of the order dated 02.07.2025 made in the above Writ Petition No.22320 of 2025, whereby, petitioner was wrongly directed to pay 25% of the disputed tax 11/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.22320 of 2025is rectified as ''10%''. 5. Except to the above changes made in para No.9, all other excerpts of that para and even others paras shall remain unchanged. 6. Registry is directed to carrying out aforesaid corrections and issue a fresh amended copy. 25.07.2025sdTo1.State Tax OfficerVepery Assessment Circle, Station No.1, (PAPJM) Annex Building, Room No.A-100, First Floor, Greams Road, Chennai-600 006.2.Assistant Commissioner (ST) (FAC)Vepery Assessment Circle Station No 1 (PAPJM) Annex Building Room No A 100 First Floor Greams Road Chennai 6000063.The Branch ManagerKotak Mahindra Bank Limited No 3 Dass India Tower 2nd Line Beach Parrys Chennai 60000112/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.22320 of 2025Krishnan Ramasamy,J.,sd W.P.No.22320 of 2025 13/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.22320 of 202525.07.202514/14