Madras High Court
WP/39422/2026 of MS Color Land Vs The Deputy State Tax Officer - 2/ on 8 October 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 08-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY
WP No. 39422 of 2026
and WMP No.44289 of 2026
CNR: {HCMA012277492026}
MS Color Land,
Represented by Senthil Natesan,
28 South Cutcherry Street,
Rasipuram Namakkal,
Tamil Nadu 637408.
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The Deputy State Tax Officer - 2/
Deputy Commercial Tax Officer
Rasipuram Assessment Circle
Rasipuram Namakkal
Tamil Nadu 637408.
2. The Assistant Commissioner (State Taxes)
Rasipuram Assessment Circle Rasipuram
Namakkal Tamil Nadu
3. The Branch Manager
DBS Bank India Limited Door No 11 11a 11b Kavarai Street Rasipuram Namakkal Tamil Nadu
..Respondent(s)
PRAYER: The Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records on the file of the 1st respondent and quash the Impugned Order passed under Section 73 of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017/Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 including the Summary of the Order in Form GST DRC-07 bearing Reference Number ZD331125386308C, along with annexure dated 21.11.2025 pertaining to case ID No. GSTIN
33ABHFM4297K1ZU/2021-22 for the Financial Year 2021-22, passed by the 1st respondent and consequently directing the 2nd respondent to lift the Bank attachment of the Petitioners Current Account bearing Account No.
06033600000831 held with the 3rd respondent, and pass such further or other orders that this Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and thus render justice.
For Petitioner(s):
Mr. Abdul Wajith E
For Respondent(s):
Mr. I. Dinesh
Additional Government Pleader
for R1 and R2
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
The present Writ Petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the first respondent dated 21.11.2025, including the Summary of the Order in Form GST DRC-07 along with the Annexure of the same date.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that although the notice was sent through RPAD, it was not received by the petitioner. Since the petitioner was unaware of the said notice, they could not file their reply within the prescribed time. Under these circumstances, the impugned order was passed by the respondent in gross violation of the principles of natural justice, without providing the petitioner an opportunity for a personal hearing. Subsequently, the petitioner's bank account was also attached, causing grave financial hardship and irreparable injury to their business operations. Hence, the present Writ Petition has been filed.
3. Further, the learned counsel would submit that the petitioner is voluntarily willing to pay 25% of the disputed tax amount to the respondent. To that effect, an endorsement has also been made in the Court bundle. Hence, he requests this Court to set aside the impugned order and grant an opportunity to the petitioner to present their case before the first respondent.
4. On the other hand, the learned Additional Government Pleader (T) appearing for the respondents submits that sufficient opportunity was given to the petitioner and the notice was duly sent through RPAD. However, he submits that the same was returned unserved, and the petitioner failed to avail themselves of the opportunity. Nevertheless, he fairly concedes that the matter may be remanded back to the respondent, subject to the petitioner depositing 25% of the disputed tax amount.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader (T) for the respondents, and perused the materials available on record.
6. In the case on hand, the respondents had sent the notice through RPAD, which was returned unserved. Since the petitioner was unaware of the notice, they could not file their reply within the prescribed time. Under these circumstances, the impugned order was passed ex-parte. However, taking note of the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is willing to deposit 25% of the disputed tax amount, this Court is inclined to set aside the impugned order dated 21.11.2025 passed by the first respondent. Accordingly, this Court passes the following order:-
(i) The impugned order dated 21.11.2025 is set aside and the matter is remanded to the first respondent for fresh consideration on condition that the petitioner pays 25% of disputed tax amount to the respondent within a period of four
(4) 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. In the event, any amount is already recovered/paid, the petitioner is granted liberty to adjust the said amount while making payment of 25% of the disputed tax amount.
(ii) The petitioner shall file their reply/objection along with the required documents, if any, within a period of two weeks from the date of payment of amount as stated above.
(iii) On filing of such reply/objection by the petitioner, the first respondent shall consider the same and issue a 14 days clear notice, by fixing the date of personal hearing, to the petitioner and thereafter, pass appropriate orders 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 first and second respondents are directed to instruct the concerned Bank to release the attachment, and de-freeze the bank account of the petitioner, immediately upon proof of payment of the said amount.
(v) In the event that the first and second respondents fail to communicate the lifting of the attachment within the stipulated time, liberty is granted to the petitioner to produce proof of the such deposit along with a copy of this order directly to the concerned Bank. Upon production of the same, the Bank is directed to de-freeze the bank account of the petitioner and permit them to operate the account normally. The same shall be intimated to the authorities concerned.
7. With the above directions, this Writ Petition is disposed of. W.M.P.No.44289 of 2026 filed to dispense with the production of the original impugned order, is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. 08-10-2026 Asi To
1. The Deputy State Tax Officer - 2/ Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Rasipuram Assessment Circle, Rasipuram Namakkal, Tamil Nadu 637408.
2. The Assistant Commissioner (State Taxes), Rasipuram Assessment Circle Rasipuram, Namakkal Tamil Nadu.
3. The Branch Manager, DBS Bank India Limited Door No 11 11a 11b, Kavarai Street Rasipuram Namakkal Tamil Nadu.
KRISHNAN RAMASAMY, J. Asi WP No. 39422 of 2026 and WMP No.44289 of 2026 08-10-2026