Tvl Shree Saraa Tex vs. The State Tax Officer (Fac)

Facts

The petitioner, Tvl Shree Saraa Tex, represented by its Proprietor Arjunan, filed a writ petition challenging an assessment order dated 31.12.2025 passed by the respondent, The State Tax Officer (FAC), Karur-3 Assessment Circle, for the tax period 2021-22. This order was preceded by a show cause notice dated 14.06.2025, requiring the petitioner to reply within 30 days. The respondent also issued reminders on 23.10.2025, 21.11.2025, and 04.12.2025, calling for a reply and personal hearing. The petitioner appeared for the personal hearing but did not file a reply or provide reasons for the delay, leading to the impugned order. The petitioner expressed willingness to pre-deposit 25% of the disputed tax.

Held

The Court decided to remit the case back to the respondent for a fresh adjudication. The impugned order dated 31.12.2025 was to be treated as an addendum to the show cause notice dated 14.06.2025. The petitioner was directed to deposit 25% of the disputed tax in cash from their electronic cash register within thirty days of receiving the order. Concurrently, the petitioner was required to file a reply to the show cause notice along with supporting documents. Upon compliance, the respondent was to pass a final order on merits within three months. The attachment of the petitioner's bank account, if any, would be automatically vacated subject to the deposit and the petitioner not being in arrears for other tax periods. If the petitioner failed to comply, the respondent was at liberty to proceed as if the writ petition was dismissed. The respondent was also directed to issue due notice before passing any further order. The issue of whether the original order was entirely without jurisdiction was not definitively decided but was rendered moot by the remittance.

Key Issues

1. Whether the assessment order passed by the respondent is cryptic, non-speaking, illegal, arbitrary, and without jurisdiction, warranting quashing under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, as argued by the petitioner? 2. Whether the respondent failed to provide adequate opportunity of being heard to the petitioner before passing the impugned assessment order? The petitioner argued that the assessment order was passed without proper consideration of their case and lacked proper reasoning, making it liable for quashing. They contended that the respondent acted arbitrarily and without jurisdiction. The petitioner also sought a direction for a fresh assessment after affording an opportunity of being heard. The respondent, represented by the State of Tamil Nadu, did not record any specific arguments against the petitioner's contentions but was present for the hearing. The judgment does not explicitly detail the respondent's arguments against the petitioner's claims.