Tvl Cisil Kumar vs. The State Tax Officer /The Commercial Tax Officer

Facts

The petitioner, Tvl Cisil Kumar, represented by its Proprietor R.Cisil Kumar, filed a writ petition challenging an assessment order dated 17.02.2026, passed by the respondent, the State Tax Officer/Commercial Tax Officer. This order was preceded by a show cause notice dated 19.11.2025, requiring the petitioner to reply within 30 days. The respondent issued reminders on 23.01.2026, 29.01.2026, and 07.02.2026, calling for a reply and personal hearing. The petitioner attended the personal hearing but did not file a reply or provide reasons for the delay. The impugned assessment order was then passed. The petitioner sought to quash the order and requested the respondent to redo the assessment proceedings for the year 2025-26.

Held

The Court decided to remit the case back to the respondent for passing a fresh order. This decision was made subject to the petitioner depositing 25% of the disputed tax in cash from their electronic cash ledger within thirty days of receiving a copy of the order. Additionally, the petitioner must file a reply to the show cause notice dated 19.11.2025, along with supporting documents, treating the impugned order as an addendum to the show cause notice. If these conditions are met, the respondent shall proceed to pass a final order on merits and in accordance with law, preferably within three months of the reply and pre-deposit. The attachment of the petitioner's bank account, if any, shall stand automatically vacated upon compliance. The Court clarified that the bank attachment would be lifted only if the 25% deposit is made and the petitioner is not in arrears for any other tax period. If the petitioner fails to comply with any stipulation, the respondent is at liberty to recover the tax as if the writ petition was dismissed. The respondent is required to issue due notice before passing any further order. No issue was expressly left undecided.

Key Issues

1. Whether the assessment order dated 17.02.2026, passed by the respondent, is illegal and devoid of merits, warranting its quashment and a direction for de novo assessment proceedings for the year 2025-26? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the assessment order was illegal and sought a fresh assessment. The petitioner expressed willingness to pre-deposit 25% of the disputed tax as a condition for de novo adjudication and made a corresponding endorsement. Revenue's contention: The respondent, represented by the State of Tamil Nadu, did not explicitly record any arguments in opposition to the petitioner's request for a fresh assessment, given the petitioner's willingness to comply with certain conditions. The judgment notes that the matter was disposed of with the consent of both learned counsel.