Sri Karuppaiya Milk Agency vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer - 2
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Sri Karuppaiya Milk Agency, represented by its Proprietor M. Karthikeyan, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 25.10.2025 passed by the Deputy State Tax Officer - 2, Commercial Taxes Department, Arupukottai (the first respondent). The petitioner contended that the impugned order was passed without providing an opportunity to be heard, thus violating the principles of natural justice. The respondents, represented by the counsel for the State of Tamil Nadu, fairly conceded that the impugned order could be set aside and the case remitted back to the first respondent for fresh consideration. The tax period involved is 2021-2022, and the order under challenge is the one dated 25.10.2025 passed by the first respondent.
Held
The Court held that the impugned order dated 25.10.2025, passed by the first respondent, was liable to be quashed on the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice, as the petitioner was not provided with an adequate opportunity to be heard. The Court accepted the fair submission made by the counsel for the State of Tamil Nadu. Consequently, the impugned order was quashed, and the case was remitted back to the first respondent for fresh consideration in accordance with law. The petitioner was directed to file a reply to the Show Cause Notice dated 09.08.2025, along with supporting documents, within thirty days of receiving the order. The first respondent was then directed to pass a final order on merits after hearing the petitioner, preferably within six weeks of receiving the petitioner's reply. The Court also stipulated that if the petitioner failed to comply with these directions, the first respondent would be at liberty to proceed against the petitioner as if the writ petition had been dismissed.
Key Issues
1. Whether the impugned order dated 25.10.2025, passed by the first respondent, is liable to be quashed for violation of the principles of natural justice, specifically for not providing an opportunity to the petitioner to be heard? The petitioner argued that the impugned order was passed without affording them an opportunity to present their case, which is a fundamental breach of natural justice principles. Therefore, the order is vitiated and deserves to be quashed. The respondents, through the counsel for the State of Tamil Nadu, fairly submitted that the impugned order could be set aside and the case remitted back to the first respondent for fresh consideration. They did not contest the petitioner's assertion regarding the lack of opportunity.
Sections Cited
None explicitly mentioned in the judgment text provided.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Before: and Dr. S.V.K.S. Thangaraj Salai
Mr.R.Parthiban, learned counsel for the State of Tamil Nadu, takes notice for the respondents. 2.This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order passed by the first respondent in GSTIN.33DUUPK3253G1ZF/2021-2022 dated 25.10.2025. 3.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that without providing an opportunity to the petitioner, the first respondent has passed the impugned order and that therefore, the same is in violation of principles of natural justice. Hence, he prayed to allow this Writ Petition. 4.The learned counsel for State of Tamil Nadu for the respondents would fairly submit that this Court may set aside the impugned order and remit the case back to the first respondent for fresh consideration. 2/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, the impugned order is quashed and the case is remitted back to the first respondent to pass a fresh order in accordance with law. 6.The petitioner shall file a reply to the Show Cause Notice dated 09.08.2025 together with requisite documents to substantiate the case by treating the Impugned Order dated 25.10.2025 as an addendum to the Show Cause Notice dated 09.08.2025 within a period of thirty (30) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 7.In case, the petitioner complies with the above stipulations, the first respondent shall proceed to pass a final order on merits and in accordance with law, after hearing the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of such reply. 8.In case, the petitioner fails to comply with any of the stipulations, the first respondent is at liberty to proceed against the petitioner to recover the tax, if any, in accordance with law as if this Writ Petition was dismissed in limine today. 3/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
This Writ Petition stands allowed with the above observations. No costs. Connected Writ Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. Index : Yes / No 23.07.2026 Internet : Yes / No mm To 1.The Deputy State Tax Officer - 2 Commercial Taxes Department Arupukottai Virudhunagar District. 2.The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (GST) 4th Floor, Commercial Taxes Building Dr. S.V.K.S. Thangaraj Salai Madurai - 625 020. 4/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis M.DHANDAPANI, J.
mm
2026 5/5 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.