V.R.Nagarajan vs. The State Tax Officer

Held

The Court acknowledged that the petitioner had suffered an ex-parte order and that the period for filing an appeal had expired. To provide relief, the Court permitted the petitioner to file an appeal within thirty days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. This appeal would be entertained without reference to the limitation period. However, as a condition for this relief, the petitioner was required to pay 10% of the disputed tax amount as pre-deposit. The Court explicitly stated that if the petitioner failed to remit the pre-deposit or file the appeal within the stipulated thirty days, the benefit of this order would be automatically recalled. The Court did not decide on the merits of the original assessment or the validity of the ex-parte orders themselves, focusing instead on procedural relief.

Facts

The petitioner, V.R. Nagarajan, filed a writ petition before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court challenging an ex-parte order passed by the first respondent, the State Tax Officer, Palayamkottai Assessment Circle, and a consequential summary order by the second respondent, the Commercial Tax Officer, Palayamkottai. The impugned orders pertain to the tax period May 2019 to March 2020 (Financial Year 2019-2020) and were both dated June 6, 2025. The petitioner sought to quash these orders, alleging illegality, lack of jurisdiction, and violation of natural justice, and requested a fresh assessment with an opportunity for a personal hearing.

Key Issues

1. Whether the ex-parte orders passed by the respondents are illegal, without jurisdiction, and in gross violation of the principles of natural justice, thereby warranting their quashment under Article 226 of the Constitution of India? The petitioner argued that the orders were passed ex-parte, implying a lack of opportunity to be heard, which violates the principles of natural justice. The petitioner sought a fresh assessment after being provided with a personal hearing as per the provisions of the GST Act. The respondents did not record any specific arguments in the judgment. However, their participation as respondents in the writ petition implies a defense of their actions. The judgment does not elaborate on the specific contentions of the revenue.