Tvl. Avl Engineering vs. The State Tax Officer (St)
Held
The Court acknowledged that the petitioner suffered an ex-parte order and that the appeal period had expired. To address the violation of natural justice principles, 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 limitation. However, the petitioner was required to pay 10% of the disputed tax amount as a pre-deposit. The Court stipulated that if the petitioner failed to remit the pre-deposit or file the appeal within the specified thirty days, the benefit of this order would stand automatically recalled. The Court did not explicitly discuss the specific provisions of the GST Act or the jurisdiction of the respondent in detail, focusing instead on providing a procedural remedy.
Facts
The petitioner, Tvl.A.V.L. Engineering, represented by its Proprietor Vincent Lino, filed a writ petition challenging an ex-parte order passed by the Respondent, The State Tax Officer (ST), Tuticorin - I Assessment Circle. The impugned order was dated 11.08.2022. The petitioner contended that the order was illegal, without jurisdiction, and in gross violation of the principles of natural justice. The petitioner sought to quash the order and requested a fresh assessment after being provided an opportunity for a personal hearing as per the provisions of the GST Act. The appeal period for the impugned order had expired.
Key Issues
1. Whether the ex-parte order passed by the Respondent on 11.08.2022 is liable to be quashed for being illegal, without jurisdiction, and in gross violation of the principles of natural justice, as contended by the Petitioner? 2. Whether the Petitioner is entitled to a fresh assessment after being provided an opportunity of a personal hearing as per the provisions of the GST Act, as prayed for by the Petitioner? Petitioner's Contentions: The Petitioner argued that the ex-parte order was passed in violation of natural justice principles and lacked jurisdiction. They sought a fresh assessment with an opportunity for a personal hearing. The Petitioner did not rely on any specific provisions, circulars, or precedents in the provided text. Respondent's Contentions: The Respondent did not present any arguments in the provided text.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 28.11.2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN and W.M.P(MD)No.27289 of 2025 Tvl.A.V.L.Engineering, Represented by its Proprietor Vincent Lino, 1/426A Bharathi Nagar, Meelavittan Road, Tuticorin District – 628 002. ... Petitioner Vs.
The State Tax Officer (ST), Tuticorin - I Assessment Circle, Commercial Tax Offices, Tuticorin District. ... Respondent Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the Respondent vide his proceedings in GSTIN: 33ABAPL5924D1Z4/20-21, dated 11.08.2022 and quash the same as it is illegal, without jurisdiction and in 1/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis gross violation of Principles of Natural Justice and further direct the respondent to re-do the assessment afresh after providing the petitioner an opportunity of Personal Hearing as per the provisions of the GST Act.
For Petitioner : Mr.A.Satheesh Murugan For Respondent : Mr.R.Suresh K
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Madras High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.