Tvl Enviro Care INDIA Private Limited Unit Ii vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)/

Facts

The petitioner, Tvl Enviro Care India Private Limited UNIT II, filed a writ petition challenging an assessment order dated 10.12.2025, issued by the Assistant Commissioner (ST), Madurai. This order was based on a show cause notice dated 29.09.2025, for the tax period 2021-22. The petitioner was issued reminders and appeared for a personal hearing but did not file a reply or provide reasons for the delay. The respondent passed the impugned order. The petitioner sought to quash the order and requested a de novo assessment. During the hearing, the petitioner agreed to pre-deposit 25% of the disputed tax.

Held

The Court decided to remit the case back to the respondent for a fresh assessment. This decision was based on the petitioner's willingness to pre-deposit 25% of the disputed tax in cash from their electronic cash register within thirty days. The Court directed the petitioner to file a reply to the show cause notice dated 29.09.2025, along with supporting documents, treating the impugned order as an addendum. If the petitioner complies with these stipulations, the respondent is to pass a final order on merits expeditiously, preferably within three months. The attachment of the petitioner's bank account, if any, shall be vacated upon compliance. The Court clarified that the bank attachment would be lifted only if the 25% deposit is made and the petitioner has no other arrears for different tax periods. If the petitioner fails to comply, the respondent can proceed to recover the tax as if the writ petition was dismissed. The ratio is that a taxpayer's willingness to pre-deposit a portion of the disputed tax, coupled with a commitment to provide a proper reply and documentation, can lead to a remand for de novo adjudication, provided the taxpayer complies with the court's conditions.

Key Issues

1. Whether the assessment order dated 10.12.2025, passed by the respondent, is illegal and devoid of merits, warranting its quashing? The petitioner argued that the assessment order should be set aside and the proceedings redone. The petitioner contended that they are willing to pre-deposit 25% of the disputed tax as a condition for a fresh adjudication, as evidenced by an endorsement in the court bundle. The respondent, represented by the counsel for the State of Tamil Nadu, did not record any specific arguments against the petitioner's request for a de novo assessment, but implicitly agreed to the court's directions by consenting to the disposal of the writ petition at the admission stage.