Tvl. Madura Tours And Travels vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer- 1

Held

The Court quashed the impugned ex parte order passed by the respondent. The reasoning was based on the petitioner's assertion of unawareness of the proceedings due to online notice service, which raised concerns about the adherence to principles of natural justice. The Court accepted the submission made by the Additional Government Pleader regarding a conditional relief in similar matters. The petitioner was directed to deposit 25% of the disputed tax amount through the electronic cash ledger within thirty days of receiving a copy of the order. Upon compliance, the attachment on the petitioner's Input Tax Credit (ITC) account would be raised. The petitioner was also directed to reply to the show cause notice within thirty days thereafter. The respondent was then mandated to provide a personal hearing and pass a fresh final order within two months. The Court stipulated that if the petitioner failed to comply with the deposit and reply timelines, the benefit of this order would be automatically recalled, and the impugned order could be enforced. No issue was expressly left undecided.

Facts

The petitioner, Tvl.Madura Tours & Travels, filed a writ petition challenging an ex parte order passed by the respondent, The Deputy State Tax Officer – 1, Madurai Rural (East) Assessment Circle. The petitioner claimed they were unaware of the proceedings because the notice was served only through the online portal. The impugned order pertains to the tax period of November 2021 to December 2021. The petitioner sought to quash the order, arguing it was illegal, without jurisdiction, and in violation of natural justice, and requested a fresh assessment with a personal hearing. The respondent's counsel submitted that in similar cases, relief was granted upon deposit of 25% of the disputed tax amount.

Key Issues

1. Whether the ex parte order passed by the respondent is liable to be quashed on the grounds of violation of principles of natural justice, specifically the lack of awareness of the notice served through the online portal, and lack of jurisdiction. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the ex parte order was illegal, without jurisdiction, and passed in gross violation of the principles of natural justice. The primary grievance was that the notice was served only through the online portal, leading to the petitioner's unawareness of the proceedings. Therefore, the petitioner sought to quash the impugned order and prayed for a fresh assessment with an opportunity for a personal hearing. Respondent's arguments: The respondent, through the Additional Government Pleader, submitted that in similar matters, the Court had granted relief by directing the assessee to deposit 25% of the disputed tax amount. No specific arguments were recorded against the petitioner's claims of procedural irregularities or lack of jurisdiction.