WP/43067/2026 of SAS CONSTRUCTION Vs THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (ST) on 16 October 2026

ORDER

Mr.R.Sethu Prabakaran, learned Government Advocate (Tax) takes notice for the Respondent.

2. With the consent of both sides, this Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.

3. This Writ Petition has been filed by the Petitioner seeking to quash the Order in Form GST DRC-07 bearing Reference No.ZD330624365859T dated 29.06.2024 passed by the Respondent and consequently, direct the Respondent to reconsider the matter afresh, after providing a fair and reasonable opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner and permitting the Petitioner to submit all supporting documents.

4. The learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that upon scrutinizing the returns filed by the Petitioner for the Financial Year 2018-2019, following discrepancies were found by the Officials:

(i) Input Mismatch between Form GSTR-3B and Form GSTR-2A

(ii) Difference between GSTR-7 and GSTR-1

(iii) Interest on delayed payment of tax under Section 50(1) of the GST Act, 2017. Hence, the Respondent issued a Show Cause Notice in Form GST DRC-01 on 04.04.2024, calling upon the Petitioner to submit its reply by 28.04.2024. After the receipt of Show Cause Notice, the Petitioner submitted its reply before the Respondent vide Communication dated 26.04.2024 and also submitted its Reply in Form GST DRC-06 on 27.04.2024. Subsequently, the Respondent has passed the Demand Order dated 29.06.2024 along with Summary of the Order in Form GST DRC-07, confirming the tax and penalty proposed in the Show Cause Notice and directing the Petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.10,92,820/-.

4.1. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that in this case, the entire disputed tax amount is Rs.11,71,836/-. The Petitioner paid a sum of Rs.3,90,296/- (Rs.1,95,148/- towards CGST & Rs.1,95,148/- towards SGST) for the Tax Period April, 2018 to March, 2019 vide Form GST DRC-03 dated 27.04.2024. Similarly, the Petitioner paid a sum of Rs.2,65,952/- towards SGST for the Tax Period April, 2018 to March, 2019 vide Form GST DRC-03 dated 14.06.2024 and also, paid a sum of Rs.2,65,952/- towards CGST for the Tax Period April, 2018 to March, 2019 vide Form GST DRC-03 dated 28.06.2024. Totally, a sum of Rs.9,22,200/- has been paid by the Petitioner.

The same has also been acknowledged by the Respondent. However, without considering the same, the Respondent has passed the impugned Demand Order. The learned counsel has also produced a copy of the Form GST DRC-03 dated 27.04.2024, 14.06.2024 & 28.06.2024 before this Court.

4.2. The learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that without affording an opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner, the Respondent has passed the impugned Demand Order. Therefore, the learned counsel prayed that the impugned Demand Order may be quashed and the case may be remanded back to the Respondent for fresh consideration.

5. The learned Government Advocate (Tax) appearing for the Respondent fairly submitted that since more than 75% of the disputed tax amount has been paid by the Petitioner, the prayer sought in this Writ Petition may be considered.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as the learned Government Advocate (Tax) for the Respondent and perused the materials available on record.

7. In the present case, the entire disputed tax amount is Rs.11,71,836/-. The Petitioner paid a sum of Rs.3,90,296/- vide Form GST DRC-03 dated

27.04.2024; a sum of Rs.2,65,952/- vide Form GST DRC-03 dated 14.06.2024 and a sum of Rs.2,65,952/- vide Form GST DRC-03 dated 28.06.2024. Totally, a sum of Rs.9,22,200/- has been paid by the Petitioner.

8. According to the Petitioner, though the Petitioner had submitted its Reply to the Show Cause Notice, without considering the same and also, without considering the payments which were already made by the Petitioner, the Respondent has passed the impugned Demand Order. Furthermore, the impugned Demand Order is an ex-parte order since prior to passing the same, the Petitioner was not heard by the Respondent.

9. Considering the fact that the Petitioner had already paid more than 75% of the disputed tax amount and the impugned Demand Order suffers from a violation of the principles of natural justice, this Court is inclined to issue the following directions:

(i) The impugned Demand Order dated 29.06.2024 passed by the Respondent is quashed.

(ii) Consequently, the case is remanded back to the Respondent for fresh consideration.

(iii) The Petitioner is directed to file its Reply/Objection along with the required documents, if any before the Respondent, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

(iv) On filing of such Reply/Objection by the Petitioner, the Respondent shall consider the same and issue a 14 days clear notice affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the Petitioner. Thereafter, the Respondent shall pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible.

10. This Writ Petition is disposed of with the above directions. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. 16-10-2026 mrr Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-Speaking Order Neutral Citation: Yes/No To The Assistant Commissioner (ST), Nandambakkam Assessment Circle, Integrated Commercial and Registration Building, Room No.310, III Floor, Nandanam, Chennai – 600 035.

KRISHNAN RAMASAMY, J. mrr W.P.No.43067 of 2026 16-10-2026