Tvl.Shree Infrastructures vs. The Appellate Deputy Commissioner
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Tvl. Shree Infrastructures, filed a writ petition challenging an appellate order dated 29.05.2026 passed by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (State Taxes), which rejected their appeal against an assessment order dated 14.03.2025. The assessment order was passed by the State Tax Officer for the tax period 2021-22, purportedly in the absence of a reply to a show cause notice dated 05.09.2024. The appeal was rejected by the first respondent on the grounds of limitation. The petitioner had deposited 10% of the disputed tax at the time of filing the appeal. The petitioner expressed satisfaction with the case being remitted back for a fresh assessment and offered to deposit an additional 15% of the disputed tax.
Held
The Court quashed the impugned orders of both the Appellate Deputy Commissioner and the State Tax Officer. The case was remitted back to the second respondent (State Tax Officer) for passing a fresh order. This was subject to the petitioner depositing an additional 15% of the disputed tax in cash within thirty days of receiving the order. The petitioner was also directed to file a reply to the show cause notice dated 05.09.2024, along with supporting documents, treating the assessment order dated 14.03.2025 as an addendum to the show cause notice. The second respondent was instructed to pass a final order on merits within three months of the reply and pre-deposit, after providing due notice to the petitioner. Failure to comply with these stipulations would allow the respondents to proceed with tax recovery as if the writ petition was dismissed. The Court noted that the petitioner had already deposited 10% of the disputed tax at the time of filing the appeal.
Key Issues
1. Whether the Appellate Deputy Commissioner was justified in rejecting the petitioner's appeal on the grounds of limitation, considering the circumstances leading to the assessment order and the subsequent actions of the petitioner? The petitioner argued that they were willing to deposit an additional 15% of the disputed tax and sought a fresh assessment after being heard. They relied on their willingness to comply with further deposit requirements and participate in a fresh assessment. The respondents, represented by the Government Advocate (Tax), did not appear to have made specific arguments on the merits of the limitation issue in the provided text, but their position was that the appellate order rejecting the appeal on limitation grounds was valid.
Sections Cited
Section 76
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Before: and
M/s.P.Sudarkodi Natchiyar, learned Government Advocate (Tax), takes notice for the respondents.
This Writ Petition is taken up for final hearing at the time of admission with the consent of the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Advocate (Tax) for the respondents.
The petitioner is before this Court aggrieved by the Impugned Order passed by the first respondent dated 29.05.2026 bearing reference in 2/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ZD3305262843648 whereby the petitioner’s appeal against the Impugned Assessment Order dated 14.03.2025 passed by the second respondent for the tax period 2021-22 has been rejected on the ground of limitation. The Assessment Order dated 14.03.2025 has been passed in absence of reply to the Show Cause Notice dated 05.09.2024 that preceded the Assessment Order dated 14.03.2025. 4. It is noticed that at the time of filing of an appeal, the petitioner has deposited 10% of the disputed tax as confirmed by the aforesaid order dated 14.03.2025, on 31.10.2025. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is satisfied with the case remitted back to the second respondent to pass a fresh order in lieu of the order dated 14.03.2025. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner is willing to deposit another 15% of the disputed tax, over and above the 10% already pre-deposited at the time of filing of an appeal. 3/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
The learned counsel for the petitioner has also made an endorsement to that effect in the Court Bundle, which is extracted hereunder:-
“The Writ Petition undertakes to pay 15% of the disputed tax.”
In view of the above, the impugned orders are quashed and the case is remitted back to the second respondent to pass a fresh order subject to the petitioner depositing another 15% of the disputed tax in cash from the petitioner's Electronic Cash Register within a period of thirty (30) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Within such time, the petitioner shall also file a reply to the Show Cause Notice dated 05.09.2024, together with requisite documents to substantiate the case by treating the Impugned Order dated 14.03.2025 as an addendum to the Show Cause Notice dated 05.09.2024. 10. In case the petitioner complies with the above stipulations, the second 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 4/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis such reply / pre-deposit.
In case the petitioner fails to comply with any of the stipulations, the respondents are 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.
Needless to state, before passing any such order, the second respondent shall give due notice to the petitioner.
This Writ Petition stands disposed of, with the above observations. No costs. Consequently, connected Writ Miscellaneous Petition is closed. Index : Yes / No 03.08.2026 Internet : Yes / No apd To 1. The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (State Taxes)(GST Appeals) at Thiruvarur, Trichy 12A/26, Ponnagar 2nd Main Road, Near Guru Inn Apartment, Trichy-620001. 5/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.SARAVANAN, J.
apd
The State Tax Officer, Mannargudi Assessment Circle, Commercial Taxes Buildings, Mannargudi-614001. 03.08.2026 6/6 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.