Sr Powers vs. The State Tax Officer

Held

The Court acknowledged that the petitioner had suffered an ex-parte order passed by the Respondent on 20.02.2025, and the statutory appeal period had expired. The Court, in its discretion, permitted the petitioner to file an appeal within thirty days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. This permission was granted without reference to the limitation period. However, a condition was imposed: the petitioner must pay 10% of the disputed tax amount as a pre-deposit. The Court further stipulated that if the petitioner fails to remit the pre-deposit amount or file the appeal within the specified thirty days, the benefit granted by this order would stand automatically recalled. The Court disposed of the writ petition with these directions, stating no costs.

Facts

The petitioner, Tvl. S.R. Powers, represented by its proprietor, Paramasivan Velmurugan, filed a writ petition before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court. The petitioner challenged an ex-parte order dated 20.02.2025 passed by the Respondent, the State Tax Officer, Sankarankovil Assessment Circle. The impugned order pertains to GSTIN: 33ADXPV9128L2ZH/2020-21. 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 with an opportunity for a personal hearing as per the GST Act provisions. The appeal period for the impugned order had expired.

Key Issues

1. Whether the ex-parte order passed by the Respondent is illegal, without jurisdiction, and in violation of the principles of natural justice, thereby warranting quashing? 2. Whether the Petitioner is entitled to a fresh assessment with an opportunity for a personal hearing, despite the expiry of the appeal period? Petitioner's Contentions: The petitioner argued that the ex-parte order passed by the Respondent was illegal, without jurisdiction, and a gross violation of the principles of natural justice. They specifically sought to quash this order and prayed for a direction to the Respondent to re-do the assessment afresh, providing the petitioner with an opportunity for a personal hearing as mandated by the provisions of the GST Act. The petitioner's primary grievance was the lack of an opportunity to be heard before the adverse order was passed. Respondent's Contentions: The judgment records that both sides were heard. However, no specific arguments or contentions were attributed to the Respondent in the provided text.