Tvl. Ramalakshmi Construction vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer (St) Ii

Held

The Court acknowledged that the petitioner had suffered an ex-parte order on 23.06.2025, and the period for filing an appeal had expired. To address the violation of natural justice, the Court permitted the petitioner to file an appeal within 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the Court's order. This appeal was to be entertained without reference to the limitation period. However, the Court stipulated a condition that the petitioner must pay 10% of the disputed tax amount as pre-deposit. The Court further stated that if the petitioner failed to remit the pre-deposit amount or file the appeal within four weeks, the benefit granted by the order would stand automatically recalled. The Court did not explicitly decide on the legality or jurisdiction of the original order, focusing instead on providing a procedural remedy.

Facts

The petitioner, Tvl.Ramalakshmi Construction, represented by its Proprietor, filed a writ petition before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court. The petitioner challenged an ex-parte order passed by the respondent, The Deputy State Tax Officer (ST)-II, Srivilliputhur Assessment Circle, on 23.06.2025, bearing proceedings DRC-07, Case ID No.33DWYPR5872L1ZC/2023-24. 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 impugned 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 already expired.

Key Issues

1. Whether the ex-parte order passed by the respondent is liable to be quashed for being illegal, without jurisdiction, and in violation of the principles of natural justice, as argued by the petitioner? 2. Whether the petitioner should be granted an opportunity for a personal hearing for a fresh assessment, as sought by the petitioner? The petitioner argued that the order was passed ex-parte, violating the principles of natural justice, and lacked jurisdiction. They sought to quash the order and have a fresh assessment with a personal hearing. The respondent, represented by the Government Advocate, did not record any specific arguments in the judgment, but the Court's order implies that the respondent's ex-parte order was the subject of challenge.