Ayyanar C vs. M/S. Tamilnadu Commercial Taxes Department

Facts

The petitioner, C. Ayyanar, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 16.12.2025 (signed 17.12.2025) passed by the Deputy State Tax Officer (ST)-II (2nd Respondent) for the assessment year 2021-22, and a consequential arrear notice dated 25.03.2026 issued by the State Tax Officer (ST) (3rd Respondent). The impugned order was preceded by a show cause notice dated 29.08.2025. The petitioner had received reminders on 16.10.2025, 13.11.2025, and 21.11.2025, calling for a reply and personal hearing, but failed to respond or appear. The petitioner, through counsel, expressed willingness to pre-deposit 25% of the disputed tax for de novo adjudication.

Held

The Court quashed the impugned order dated 16.12.2025 and the consequential arrear notice dated 25.03.2026. The case was remitted back to the second respondent for passing 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 a copy of the order. The petitioner was also directed to file a reply to the show cause notice dated 29.08.2025 along with requisite documents within the same period, treating the impugned order as an addendum to the show cause notice. If these conditions were met, the second respondent was to pass a final order on merits expeditiously, preferably 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 with any stipulation, the second respondent could proceed to recover the tax as if the writ petition was dismissed. The second respondent was also directed to issue due notice before passing any order.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order dated 16.12.2025 and the consequential arrear notice dated 25.03.2026 are liable to be quashed, considering the petitioner's failure to respond to the show cause notice and attend personal hearings? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that they were willing to pre-deposit 25% of the disputed tax as a condition for de novo adjudication, as evidenced by an endorsement in the court bundle. They sought to have the impugned order quashed and the matter remitted back for fresh adjudication. Respondents' Contention: The respondents, represented by the State counsel, did not explicitly argue against the petitioner's request for de novo adjudication based on pre-deposit. The judgment notes that the matter was disposed of by consent.