M/S Meenakshi Textiles vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)-1 (Fac)
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, M/s Meenakshi Textiles, filed a writ petition challenging an order passed by the Assistant Commissioner (ST)-1 (FAC) on 14.08.2025, and a subsequent order by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT) on 16.07.2026. The appellate order rejected the petitioner's appeal, filed on 24.12.2025, on the grounds of limitation. The petitioner had deposited 10% of the disputed tax at the time of filing the appeal. The petitioner sought to quash the impugned orders, contending they were without jurisdiction and in violation of statutory provisions. The petitioner also offered to pre-deposit a further 15% of the disputed tax for de novo adjudication.
Held
The Court quashed the impugned order and remitted the case back to the first respondent for fresh adjudication. This decision was made conditional upon the petitioner depositing 25% of the disputed tax in cash through their Electronic Cash Ledger within thirty days of receiving a copy of the order. Any amount already paid towards pre-deposit would be adjusted. The petitioner was also directed to file a reply to the Show Cause Notice dated 19.03.2025, along with supporting documents, within the same period, treating the impugned order dated 14.08.2025 as an addendum to the Show Cause Notice. If the petitioner complied, the first respondent was to pass a final order on merits expeditiously, preferably within three months. Failure to comply would allow the first respondent to proceed with recovery as if the writ petition was dismissed. The Court also noted that due notice would be given to the petitioner before any final order is passed. The issue of jurisdiction and statutory violations was implicitly addressed by remitting the matter for fresh adjudication.
Key Issues
1. Whether the impugned order passed by the first respondent and the consequential order passed by the second respondent are liable to be quashed for being without jurisdiction and in violation of statutory provisions? The petitioner argued that the impugned orders should be quashed due to lack of jurisdiction and violation of statutory provisions. The petitioner also expressed willingness to pre-deposit an additional 15% of the disputed tax, bringing the total pre-deposit to 25%, for a fresh adjudication. The revenue did not record any specific arguments in opposition to the petitioner's contentions regarding the quashing of the orders or the pre-deposit, but implicitly supported the orders by their presence as respondents.
Sections Cited
DRC 07, DRC-01
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Before: and
The petitioner is before this Court challenging the impugned order, after
the appeal preferred by the petitioner on 24.12.2025 against the order dated 14.08.2025 came to be rejected by the second respondent vide order dated 16.07.2026 on the ground of limitation.
The facts on record indicates that the petitioner had deposited 10% of the disputed tax at the time of filing the appeal.
At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had already deposited 10% of the disputed tax at the time of filing the appeal and that the petitioner is now willing to pre-deposit a further 15% of the disputed tax as a condition for de novo adjudication.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has also made an endorsement to that effect in the Court Bundle, which is extracted hereunder:- “Petitioner undertakes to pay 15% of the disputed tax.”
In view of the above, the impugned order is quashed and the case is remitted back to the first respondent to pass a fresh order, subject to the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis __________ Page3 of 5 petitioner depositing 25% of the disputed tax in cash through the petitioner's Electronic Cash Ledger within a period of thirty (30) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Any amount already paid towards the said pre- deposit shall be duly adjusted.
Within the aforesaid period, the petitioner shall also file a reply to the Show Cause Notice in DRC-01 dated 19.03.2025, together with the requisite documents to substantiate the case, by treating the impugned order dated 14.08.2025 as an addendum to the Show Cause Notice dated 19.03.2025. 7. In the event of the petitioner complying with the above stipulations, the first 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 from the date of receipt of such reply / completion of the pre-deposit.
In the event of the petitioner failing to comply with any of the above stipulations, the first respondent shall be at liberty to proceed against the petitioner for recovery of the tax in accordance with law, as if this Writ Petition had been dismissed in limine today.
Needless to state, before passing any such order, the first respondent shall give due notice to the petitioner. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis __________ Page4 of 5
This Writ Petition stands disposed of with the above observations. No costs. Consequently, the connected Writ Miscellaneous Petition is closed. 11-08-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No smn2 To 1. The Assistant Commissioner (ST)-1 (FAC) Commercial Tax Building, Rajapalayam.
The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT) Commercial Tax Building, Virudhunagar. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis __________ Page5 of 5 C.SARAVANAN, J. smn2 11-08-2026 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Reproduced from the public record of the Madras High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.