Rajasekaran vs. The Deputy Commissioner

Held

The Court decided to quash the impugned order dated 27.02.2026 and remit the case back to the second respondent for a de novo consideration. This decision is subject to the petitioner depositing an additional 15% of the disputed tax, over and above the 10% already deposited at the time of filing the appeal. The petitioner also agreed to this condition, as endorsed in the court bundle. The petitioner is required to file a detailed reply to the Show Cause Notice dated 09.10.2025, along with supporting documents, within thirty days of receiving the order. The second respondent shall then pass a fresh order on merits within three months of receiving the reply and pre-deposit. Upon compliance, the attachment of the petitioner's bank account will be vacated. The Court clarified that the bank attachment would be lifted if the 10% deposit is made and the petitioner has no other arrears. If the petitioner fails to comply, the second respondent can proceed with recovery as if the writ petition was dismissed. The second respondent must provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard before passing any adverse order. The issue of whether the Rs. 1,29,708/- was recovered towards the tax liability was not conclusively decided but deemed improbable by the Court.

Facts

The petitioner, K. Rajasekharan, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 27.02.2026 passed by the State Tax Officer (2nd respondent). This order confirmed a proposal in a Show Cause Notice (DRC-01) dated 09.10.2025 for the tax period 2024-25, issued for non-response. The petitioner's appeal against this order, filed on 15.07.2026, was dismissed by the Deputy Commissioner (Commercial Taxes) (Appeals) (1st respondent) on 14.08.2026. The petitioner had deposited Rs. 25,942/- at the time of filing the appeal. The petitioner claimed a further recovery of Rs. 1,29,708/- on 18.05.2026, which the Court found improbable as the appeal limitation period had not expired.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order dated 27.02.2026, confirming the tax demand for the period 2024-25 in the absence of a reply to the Show Cause Notice, is illegal and unconstitutional? 2. Whether the subsequent rejection order dated 14.08.2026, dismissing the petitioner's appeal, is liable to be quashed? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the initial order confirming the demand was passed without considering a reply and that the appellate authority wrongly dismissed the appeal. The petitioner also claimed a significant amount was recovered towards the tax liability. Revenue's arguments: The respondents, through the Special Government Pleader, did not appear to have presented specific arguments on the merits of the case as recorded in the judgment. The Court noted the improbability of the petitioner's claim regarding the recovery of Rs. 1,29,708/-.