ORDERMr v. Prashanth Kiran, learned Government

WP No. 38253 of 2025IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 13-10-2025CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE C. SARAVANANWP No. 38253 of 2025ANDWMP NO. 42759 OF 2025,WMP NO. 42763 OF 20251. Jai Balaji Services Rep By PartnerSanthanalakshmi, No.2/2,1st Floor, Swami Vivekanandar Street, Porur, Chennai-600 116Petitioner(s)Vs1. The Assistant CommissionerPorur Assessment Circle, No.4/109, 1st Floor, Bangalore, Highway Road, Varadharajapuram, Nazaratpet, Chennai-600 123Respondent(s)PRAYERto call for the records on the file of the respondent in Ref. No.ZD33O525344680H dated 30.05.2025 and quash the sameFor Petitioner(s):Naresh Kumar SR. Naresh BabuFor Respondent: Mr. V. Prashanth KiranGovernment Advocate https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 38253 of 2025ORDERMr. V. Prashanth Kiran, learned Government Advocate takes notice for the Respondent.

This Writ Petition is being disposed of at the time of admission after hearing the learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned Government Advocate for the Respondent following the consistent view taken by this Court under similar circumstances.

In this Writ Petition, the Petitioner has challenged the impugned Assessment Order dated 30.05.2025, which preceded a Show Cause Notice in GST DRC-01 dated 27.03.2025 for the Tax Period between April 2022 and March 2023.

The Petitioner has approached this Court long after the expiry of the limitation period prescribed both for filing an appeal against the impugned Assessment Order dated 30.05.2025 and to rectify the same under Section 161 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 38253 of 2025of the respective GST enactments.

Reading of the impugned Assessment Order dated 08.05.2025 indicates that the Petitioner has not participated in the assessment proceedings by filing a reply to the Show Cause Notice in GST DRC-01 dated 27.03.2025 and therefore, the demand has been confirmed against the Petitioner.

The Petitioner was also issued with Reminder on 29.03.2025, called upon to file a reply and to appear for a personal hearing. On receiving the same, the Petitioner neither filed any reply nor appeared for the personal hearing fixed.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the Petitioner be given one chance to substantiate the case. The demand has been confirmed against the Petitioner merely because the Petitioner failed to respond to the Show Cause Notice in GST DRC-01 dated 27.03.2025. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 38253 of 20258. The learned Government Advocate for the Respondents on the other hand would submit that this Writ Petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed in the light of the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Singh Enterprises Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jamshedpur and others, (2008) 3 SCC 70 and in Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise Vs. Hongo India Private Limited and another, (2009) 5 SCC 791 and also in Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Kakinada and others Vs. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limited, 2020 SCC Online SC 440.

That apart, it is submitted that the Petitioner has not substantiated the case with any documents and therefore, on this count also, this Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed.

It is noticed that under similar circumstances, this Court has come to the rescue of the persons like the Petitioner by quashing the impugned Assessment Order on terms subject to the Petitioner depositing 25% of the disputed tax. I do not find any reason extenuating to take a different stand in this case. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 38253 of 202511. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Government Advocate for the Respondent and having considered the consistent view taken by this Court under similar circumstances, this Court is inclined to come to the partial rescue of the Petitioner by quashing the impugned Assessment Order dated 30.05.2025 and remitting the case back to the Respondent to pass a fresh order de novo subject to the Petitioner depositing 25% of the disputed tax in cash 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.12.