Suriya Copiers vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer-Ii

Held

The Court acknowledged that the petitioner had suffered an ex-parte order and that the statutory appeal period had expired. While not quashing the order directly, the Court provided significant relief by permitting the petitioner to file an appeal within 30 days from the receipt of a copy of the High Court's order. Crucially, this appeal was to be entertained without reference to the limitation period. As a condition for this leniency, the petitioner was required to pay 10% of the disputed tax amount as pre-deposit. The Court stipulated that if the petitioner failed to remit the pre-deposit or file the appeal within four weeks, the benefit granted by this order would stand automatically recalled. The Court did not explicitly decide on the legality, jurisdiction, or violation of natural justice of the original orders, but rather facilitated a path for the petitioner to challenge them.

Facts

The petitioner, Tvl. Suriya Copiers, represented by its Proprietor S. Ramesh, filed a writ petition before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court. The petitioner challenged an ex-parte order dated 22.01.2025 passed by the 1st Respondent, the Deputy State Tax Officer-II, Ramanathapuram Assessment Circle, and its consequential summary of order dated 23.01.2025 passed by the 2nd Respondent, the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer. 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. The appeal period for the impugned order had expired.

Key Issues

1. Whether the ex-parte order passed by the 1st Respondent and the consequential summary of order passed by the 2nd Respondent are illegal, without jurisdiction, and in gross violation of the Principles of Natural Justice, warranting quashing. 2. Whether the petitioner should be granted an opportunity for a personal hearing to re-do the assessment afresh as per the provisions of the GST Act. Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the impugned orders were passed ex-parte, violating principles of natural justice, and sought a fresh assessment with a personal hearing. The petitioner also sought to quash the orders due to illegality and lack of jurisdiction. Revenue's Contention: The judgment records no specific arguments from the respondents. However, the court's direction to file an appeal within a stipulated period with pre-deposit suggests the revenue's position was implicitly considered in the final order.