Sri Mahalakshmi Construction vs. The State Tax Officer (Data Analytics)

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Sri Mahalakshmi Construction, filed a writ petition challenging an assessment order dated 22.11.2024 and a rejection order dated 19.03.2025 for the assessment year 2017-18. This was the second time the petitioner approached the High Court. Previously, a writ petition was filed seeking a mandamus to pass a fresh assessment order after an application under Section 161 of the TNGST Act was filed on 09.12.2024. That petition was disposed of on 29.01.2025, directing the respondent to decide the Section 161 application within twelve weeks. The petitioner, however, sought adjournments for personal hearings, citing the unavailability of their Chartered Accountant. Consequently, the respondent rejected the petitioner's request for rectification of the assessment order on 19.03.2025.

Held

The Court acknowledged that while a detailed order was passed rejecting the rectification application, the petitioner had not participated in the proceedings and had sought adjournments. The Court noted that the petitioner has an appellate remedy against the assessment order dated 22.11.2024. To balance the interests of both parties, considering the amount involved and the availability of an appeal, the Court directed the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 15,00,000/- (approximately 5% of the disputed tax) within fifteen days. This deposit is a condition for the respondent to endeavor to pass a final order on merits within three months from the date of the order. The petitioner was also directed to cooperate by furnishing all required records for the application under Section 161 of the TNGST Act. The Court did not expressly decide on the legality or arbitrariness of the impugned orders but provided a procedural path forward.

Key Issues

1. Whether the rejection order dated 19.03.2025, which rejected the petitioner's application for rectification of the assessment order dated 22.11.2024, is cryptic, illegal, arbitrary, and without jurisdiction? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that both the assessment order and the subsequent rejection order were cryptic, illegal, arbitrary, and passed without jurisdiction. They sought to quash these orders and requested a fresh order considering their replies and records. Respondent's arguments: The respondent argued that the petitioner had not cooperated with the proceedings and had taken time for personal hearings, leading to the rejection order. The respondent also noted that the petitioner has an appellate remedy available, even if time-barred, by invoking Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963.