M/S.Vignesh Paper Link vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)-1

Held

The Court quashed the impugned orders passed by both the 1st and 2nd respondents. The Court noted that the petitioner had already deposited 10% of the disputed tax and, following its consistent view in similar cases, decided to remit the matter back to the 2nd respondent for fresh adjudication. This remittance was made conditional upon the petitioner depositing a further 15% of the disputed tax, in addition to the 10% already paid. The petitioner was also directed to file a detailed reply to the Show Cause Notice within thirty days of receiving the order. The 2nd respondent was instructed to consider the reply and pass a fresh order on merits after affording the petitioner a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The Court also stipulated that if the petitioner failed to comply with these conditions, the 2nd respondent would be at liberty to proceed with recovery as if the writ petition had been dismissed. The issue of the validity of the original orders in the absence of a reply was implicitly addressed by quashing them and remanding the matter.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Vignesh Paper Link, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 12.09.2025 passed by the Assistant Commissioner (ST)-1 (1st respondent) and a subsequent appellate order dated 06.05.2026 passed by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT) (2nd respondent). The initial order was passed by the 1st respondent in the absence of any reply from the petitioner to a Show Cause Notice dated 06.06.2025. The petitioner had already deposited 10% of the disputed tax at the time of filing the appeal. The petitioner sought to quash both orders and requested a fresh adjudication by the 2nd respondent after affording a personal hearing.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned orders, passed by the 1st and 2nd respondents respectively, are liable to be quashed for being cryptic, non-speaking, illegal, arbitrary, and without jurisdiction, particularly in light of the absence of a proper reply to the Show Cause Notice and the alleged denial of a personal hearing? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the orders were passed without proper adjudication and that they were denied an opportunity for a personal hearing as contemplated under Section 75(4) of the TNGST Act, 2017. They sought to quash the orders and have the matter remanded for fresh consideration. Revenue's Contention: The judgment records no specific arguments from the respondents. However, the Special Government Pleader took notice of the petition.