Tvl Kodeeswaran Jewellers vs. The Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes

Facts

The petitioner, Tvl. Koodeeswaran Jewellers, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 17.07.2025 passed by the second respondent, the State Tax Officer. The petitioner contended that the entire tax amount had been recovered pursuant to an assessment order, and the outstanding demand was only for penalty and interest. The respondents argued that the petitioner participated in the assessment proceedings, was issued a show cause notice, and failed to provide a proper response despite sufficient opportunity. The impugned order was therefore passed in accordance with law. The petitioner approached the High Court approximately six months after the impugned order was passed.

Held

The Court held that the impugned order was passed after issuing a show cause notice and providing sufficient opportunity to the petitioner. The petitioner had not provided any acceptable reason for failing to submit a proper reply to the notices. Furthermore, the petitioner approached the Court approximately six months after the impugned order, which constitutes a belated challenge without any valid explanation. Consequently, the Court found no grounds to interfere with the impugned order under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition was accordingly dismissed. No costs were awarded.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order dated 17.07.2025 passed by the second respondent is liable to be quashed, considering the petitioner's submission that the entire tax amount has been recovered and only penalty and interest remain outstanding? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that since the principal tax amount has been recovered, the impugned order, which pertains to penalty and interest, should be interfered with. The petitioner sought quashing of the order. Respondents' contention: The respondents contended that the petitioner participated in the assessment proceedings, was issued a show cause notice, and failed to provide a proper reply despite sufficient opportunity. They asserted that the impugned order was passed in accordance with law and that the petitioner's challenge, after a significant delay and without valid explanation, should not be entertained. The respondents opposed the writ petition.