Tvl.Sri Murugan Rice Mill vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Tvl. Sri Murugan Rice Mill, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 09.01.2026 passed by the Assistant Commissioner (ST), Tenkasi Assessment Circle. This order confirmed a part of the tax demand pursuant to a remand order previously passed by the High Court in W.P.(MD) No. 21239 of 2025 dated 14.08.2025. The impugned order was passed after the petitioner had replied to a show cause notice dated 26.09.2025. The petitioner had also made an endorsement undertaking to pay 25% of the disputed tax.
Held
The Court held that the impugned order was a speaking order passed after the petitioner had replied to the show cause notice, and therefore, there was no immediate scope for interference with the order itself. However, considering that the petitioner might have a case on merits in appeal, the Court granted liberty to the petitioner to file a statutory appeal before the Appellate Authority. This liberty was conditional upon the petitioner depositing 25% of the disputed tax as confirmed by the impugned order. The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (GST) was suo motu impleaded as the second respondent. The Court directed the Appellate Authority to consider the appeal on merits and in accordance with law, preferably within three months of the appeal being filed, without reference to limitation, provided the petitioner complied with the pre-deposit stipulation. If the petitioner failed to comply, the respondents were at liberty to proceed with recovery as if the writ petition was dismissed. The Court also stipulated that the Appellate Authority must give due notice to the petitioner before passing any order.
Key Issues
1. Whether the impugned order dated 09.01.2026, passed by the Assistant Commissioner (ST), Tenkasi Assessment Circle, is liable to be quashed. The petitioner contended that the impugned order should be quashed. The revenue, represented by the Special Government Pleader, argued that the impugned order was a speaking order passed after the petitioner had replied to the show cause notice and that there was no scope for interference. The Court noted that the petitioner had made an endorsement to pay 25% of the disputed tax.
Sections Cited
None explicitly mentioned in the provided text, beyond general references to statutory appeal and the impugned order.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Before: and Dr.SVKS Thangaraj Salai,
Mr.R.Parthiban, learned Special Government Pleader, takes notice for the respondent.
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 Special Government Pleader for the respondents.
The petitioner is before this Court against the Impugned Order dated 09.01.2026 bearing reference in Ref.No. ZD330126061396I/2020-21, which has been passed pursuant to the remand order passed by this Court in W.P.(MD) No. 21239 of 2025 dated 14.08.2025. By the impugned order, a part of the demand 2/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis has been confirmed, pursuant to the notice that was issued on 22.09.2025. 4. It is noticed that the petitioner had also replied to the Show Cause Notice dated 26.09.2025 and the order that has been passed as a speaking order. As such, no scope for interference with the impugned order. Therefore, this Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed on the grounds stated in the affidavit filed in support of this petition.
However, considering the fact that the petitioner may have a case on merits in appeal, I am inclined to grant liberty to the petitioner to file a statutory appeal before the Appellate Authority subject to the petitioner depositing 25 % of the disputed tax as confirmed vide impugned order.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has also made an endorsement to that effect in the Court Bundle, which is extracted hereunder:-
“The petitioner undertakes to pay 25% of the disputed tax.”
In view of the above, this Writ Petition is disposed of by giving liberty to 3/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis the petitioner to file an appeal before the Appellate Authority within a period of thirty (30) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order together with pre- deposit of 25% of the disputed tax in cash from the petitioner's Electronic Cash Register as confirmed vide impugned order.
Since the relief granted to the petitioner is to be considered by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (GST), at 4th floor, Commercial Taxes Buildings, Dr.SVKS Thangaraj Salai, Madurai – 625 020, the said Authority is suo motu impleaded as the second respondent. Mr.R.Parthiban, learned Special Government Pleader, takes notice for the second respondent.
In case the petitioner complies with the above stipulations, the second respondent shall consider the appeal and 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 appeal, without reference to the limitation.
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 4/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 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 31.07.2026 Internet : Yes / No apd To 1. The Assistant Commissioner (ST), Tenkasi Assessment Circle, SBI Bank, 3rd Floor, Near Yanai Palam, Tenkasi 627 811. 2. The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (GST) 4th floor, Commercial Taxes Buildings, Dr.SVKS Thangaraj Salai, Madurai – 625 020. 5/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.SARAVANAN, J.
apd
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.