Tvl Shaharaa Tex vs. The State Tax Officer (Fac)

Facts

The petitioner, Tvl. Shaharaa Tex, filed a writ petition before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court challenging an order dated 31.12.2025 passed by the respondent, The State Tax Officer (FAC), Karur 3 Assessment Circle. This order was issued for the assessment year 2021-22 under section 73 of the TNGST Act, 2017. The impugned order followed a show cause notice dated 14.06.2025 and subsequent reminders. The petitioner had neither filed a reply nor appeared for personal hearings, leading to the ex-parte order. During the hearing, the petitioner expressed willingness to pre-deposit 25% of the disputed tax.

Held

The Court quashed the impugned order dated 31.12.2025 passed by the respondent. The case was remitted back to the respondent for a fresh order, subject to the petitioner depositing 25% of the disputed tax in cash from their electronic cash register within thirty days of receiving the order. The petitioner was also directed to file a reply to the show cause notice dated 14.06.2025, along with supporting documents, within the same period, treating the impugned order as an addendum to the show cause notice. If these conditions were met, the respondent was to pass a final order on merits within three months of the reply and pre-deposit. The attachment of the petitioner's bank account, if any, would stand vacated upon compliance. The Court clarified that if the petitioner failed to comply, the respondent could proceed to recover the tax as if the writ petition was dismissed. The respondent was also directed to issue due notice before passing any further order. The issue of the validity of the original assessment order was not decided on merits, but the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order dated 31.12.2025, passed by the respondent under section 73 of the TNGST Act, 2017, is liable to be quashed as cryptic, non-speaking, illegal, arbitrary, and without jurisdiction. Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the order was passed without proper adjudication and sought to quash it, requesting a fresh assessment order after affording an opportunity of being heard. The petitioner also undertook to pre-deposit 25% of the disputed tax as a condition for de novo adjudication. Respondent's contention: The respondent, represented by the learned counsel for the State of Tamil Nadu, took notice of the petition. No specific argument was recorded for the respondent in opposition to the petitioner's prayer for a fresh adjudication, given the consent to dispose of the matter at the admission stage.