Tvl. Payal Silks And Readymades vs. State Tax Officer (St)

Facts

The petitioner, Tvl. Payal Silks and Readymades, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 18.04.2024 issued by the respondent, the State Tax Officer (ST), Thanjavur. The impugned order was passed ex-parte because the petitioner failed to avail the opportunity to respond to a show cause notice, which was uploaded by the respondent. The petitioner contended that due to health, family, and financial issues, their accountant overlooked the show cause notice. The disputed tax amount is not explicitly stated in the judgment.

Held

The Court held that an opportunity should be granted to the petitioner to present their submissions and produce supporting documents before the respondent assessing officer. The Court reasoned that while it extends such opportunities on equitable grounds, it is usually under appropriate conditions. Therefore, the Court decided to allow the writ petition on the condition that the petitioner deposits 25% of the disputed tax amount. Upon this deposit, the impugned ex-parte order dated 18.04.2024 would be set aside, and the matter would be remanded back to the respondent for fresh consideration. The petitioner would then need to appear before the respondent, submit their reply and documents, and the respondent would pass orders in accordance with the law. Any bank account attachment made pursuant to the impugned order would also be raised.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner should be granted an opportunity to present their submissions and documents before the respondent, despite failing to respond to the show cause notice, considering the reasons provided for the default? (Mixed question of law and fact, concerning principles of natural justice and equitable relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India). Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that due to personal difficulties (health, family, and financial problems), they were unable to respond to the show cause notice, and their accountant failed to notice its issuance. They sought an opportunity to present their case. Respondent's contention: The respondent did not present any specific arguments against granting an opportunity, but the judgment notes that the impugned order was passed ex-parte due to the petitioner's non-compliance.