Tvl.K.Mohamed Ibrahim Rowthar Sons vs. The Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes

Facts

The petitioner, Tvl.K.Mohamed Ibrahim Rowthar Sons, filed a writ petition before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court challenging an order dated December 18, 2025, passed by the Deputy State Tax Officer (2nd respondent). This order was issued for the tax period 2021-22. The impugned order followed a show cause notice dated August 7, 2025, which called for objections within 30 days. Despite reminders and opportunities for personal hearing, the petitioner failed to file a reply or appear. Consequently, the impugned order was passed. During the court hearing, the petitioner expressed willingness to pre-deposit 25% of the disputed tax.

Held

The Court quashed the impugned order dated December 18, 2025, passed by the second respondent. The case was remitted back to the second respondent for a fresh adjudication. This decision was made conditional upon 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 August 7, 2025, along with supporting documents, 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. The attachment of the petitioner's bank account, if any, would stand automatically vacated upon compliance. The Court clarified that bank attachment would be lifted subject to the deposit and the petitioner not being in arrears for other tax periods. If the petitioner failed to comply, the second respondent could proceed to recover the tax as if the writ petition was dismissed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order dated December 18, 2025, passed by the Deputy State Tax Officer for the tax period 2021-22, should be quashed, considering the petitioner's failure to respond to the show cause notice and personal hearing notices. Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that they are willing to pre-deposit 25% of the disputed tax as a condition for de novo adjudication and have made an endorsement to this effect. They sought to set aside the impugned order. Respondents' contention: The respondents (Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and Deputy State Tax Officer) did not present any specific arguments as the matter was disposed of by consent at the admission stage, with the court recording the petitioner's undertaking.