WP/38792/2026 of RR CONSTRUCTIONS Vs The Commercial Tax Officer on 6 October 2026

Order

This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 29.08.2024 passed by the respondent.

2. Mr.I.Dinesh, learned Additional Government Pleader, takes notice on behalf of the respondent.

3. By consent of the parties, the main writ petition is taken up for disposal at the admission stage itself.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in this case, upon receipt of the show cause notice dated 03.08.2022, the petitioner requested time for filing their reply vide communication dated 08.05.2023. However, without granting any such extension of time, the impugned order came to be passed by the respondent. He would also contend that no opportunity of personal hearing was granted to the petitioner prior to the passing of impugned order. Therefore, this petition has been filed.

5. Further, he would submit that the petitioner has already paid more than 50% of the disputed tax amount and now, he is ready and willing to pay additional 10% of the tax amount to the respondent for the lifting of bank attachment. Hence, he requests this Court to grant an opportunity to the petitioner to present their case before the respondent by setting aside the impugned order.

6. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that though the extension of time was not granted by the respondent by way of writing, the impugned order was passed only on 29.08.2024, i.e., after a period of nearly two years from the date of issuance of show cause notice dated 03.08.2022. Further, the respondent had never prevented the petitioner from filing his reply till the date of passing of impugned order. Hence, she would submit that the petitioner had failed to avail the said opportunity and thus, requests this Court to pass appropriate orders.

7. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent and also perused the materials available on record.

8. In the case on hand, it is evident that the show cause notice was sent to the petitioner on 03.08.2022. Upon receipt of the said show cause notice, the petitioner had sought for extension of time for filing reply vide communication dated 08.05.2023. However, without granting any such extension, the impugned order came to be passed by the respondent on 29.08.2024.

9. At this juncture, it would be pertinent to note that though the show cause notice was issues as early as on 03.08.2022, the impugned order came to be passed only on 29.08.2024, i.e., after a period of two years. In such case, as rightly contended by the respondent, the petitioner could have very well filed their reply at any time from the date of issuance of show cause notice till the date of passing of impugned order. However, the petitioner had failed to avail such opportunity and thus, this Court does not find any fault on the part of the respondent.

10. On the other hand, if the respondent intends to pass any adverse order against the Assessee, under Section 75(4) of the GST Act, 2017, it is mandatory for them to provide an opportunity of personal hearing prior to the passing of assessment order. However, in this case, no such opportunity of personal hearing was provided to the petitioner and thus, it is clear that the impugned order came to be passed not only in contrary to the provisions of Section 75(4) of the GST Act but also in violation of principles of natural justice.

11. Further, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has already paid more than 50% of the disputed tax amount and now, he is ready and willing to pay additional 10% of the disputed tax amount to the respondent for lifting of bank attachment. In such view of the matter, this Court is inclined to set aside the impugned order dated 29.08.2024 passed by the respondent. Accordingly, this Court passes the following order:-

(i) The impugned order dated 29.08.2024 is set aside and the matter is remanded to the respondent for fresh consideration.

(ii) The petitioner shall file their 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) On filing of such reply/objection by the petitioner, the 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) At request, the attachment made on the bank account of the petitioner stands lifted, subject to the payment of additional 10% of the disputed tax amount to the respondent. As a sequel, the concerned Bank is directed to de- freeze the bank account of the petitioner, immediately upon the production of proof with regard to the payment made by the petitioner as stated above.

(v) As far as the property attachment is concerned, it shall continue until the passing of assessment order. The petitioner, if so advised, shall make appropriate request before the concerned Authority for lifting the same.

12. With the above directions, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is also closed. 06-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No nsa To The Commercial Tax Officer Office of the State Tax Officer, Panruti Rural, Old kumbakonam road, C.T. Building1st floor, Near Taluk office, Panruti-607106

KRISHNAN RAMASAMY J. nsa WP No. 38792 of 2026 06-10-2026