Sri Dhanalakshmi Sago Factory v. The State Tax Officer
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 07.01.2026 CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN and W.M.P.Nos.56826 and 56827 of 2025 Tvl.Sri Dhanalakshmi Sago Factory Rep by its Proprietor K.Venkatesan.
... Petitioner Vs.
The State Tax Officer, Attur (Town) Circle, Attur, Salem District.
... Respondent Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records on the files of the Respondent pertaining to GSTIN:33ABGFS5611Q1ZT/20202021 dated 14.02.2025, to quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the Respondent to consider the matter afresh after providing an opportunity of hearing and dispose the case on merits.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Rajesh For Respondent : Mr.V.Prashanth Kiran Government Advocate 1/6
ORDER
Mr.V.Prashanth Kiran, learned Government Advocate takes notice for the Respondent.
2. This Writ Petition is being disposed of at the stage of admission itself with the consent of the learned counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Government Advocate for the Respondent.
3. The Petitioner is before this Court against the impugned order dated 14.02.2025, whereby the demand proposed in Show Cause Notice in GST DRC - 01 dated 25.11.2024 has been partly confirmed and dropped.
4. The dispute pertains to confirmation of demand on defect No.3 "undeclaration on ineligible ITC" to which the petitioner has replied as under:- Particulars SGST CGST Total Total ineligible ITC u/s 17(5) 307408 307408 614816 Ineligible ITC declared 11104 Difference / Excess ITC claimed 301856 301856 603712 2/6
For that we did not take ITC for Motor Vehicles, Sand and Hardware. And also Without electrical goods and Machinery spares we cannot manufacture the sago and sago products.
Hence, the question of Excess availment of ITC is not applicable, as we have not used any excess ITC credits.
5. The learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that by oversight, the Petitioner did not opt for personal hearing at the time of filing of reply dated 10.12.2024. He further submits that the Petitioner may be given one opportunity to explain the case afresh.
6. The learned counsel for the Petitioner further submits that the Petitioner is willing to pre-deposit 25% of the disputed tax as a condition for denovo adjudication.
7. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Government Advocate for the Respondent.
8. Following the consistent view taken by this Court under similar circumstances, the case is remitted back to the Respondent to pass a fresh order on merits and considering the fact that the Petitioner's reply dated 10.12.2024 in response to defect No.3 in DRC-01 dated 25.11.2024 was 3/6
skeletal subject to the Petitioner depositing 25% of the disputed tax in cash or from the Petitioner's Electronic Cash Register within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
9. Within such time, the Petitioner shall also file a reply to the Show Cause Notice in GST DRC-01 dated 25.11.2024 together with requisite documents to substantiate the case by treating the impugned Order dated 14.02.2025 as an addendum to the Show Cause Notice dated 25.11.2024.
10. In case the Petitioner complies with the above stipulations, the Respondent shall proceed to pass a final order on merits and in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of three (3) months of such reply/pre-deposit. Subject to the Petitioner complying with the above stipulations, the attachment of the bank account of the Petitioner shall also stand automatically vacated.
11. It is made clear that bank attachment shall be lifted subject to the Petitioner depositing 25% of the disputed tax as ordered above and the Petitioner not being in arrears of any other amount for any other tax period barring the amount demanded under the impugned Order. 4/6
12. In case the Petitioner fails to comply with any of the stipulations, the Respondent is at liberty to proceed against the Petitioner to recover the tax in accordance with law as if this Writ Petition was dismissed in limine today.
13. Needless to state, before passing any such order, the Respondent shall give due notice to the Petitioner.
14. This Writ Petition stands disposed of with the above observations. No costs. Connected Writ Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. 07.01.2026 jas To:
The State Tax Officer, Attur (Town) Circle, Attur, Salem District.
5/6
C.SARAVANAN, J.
jas and W.M.P.Nos.56826 and 56827 of 2025 07.01.2026 6/6