M/S.Vkn Contracts vs. Deputy Commercial Tax Officer
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, M/s.VKN Contracts, represented by its Proprietor, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 03.12.2024 passed by the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, State Tax Office, Ettayapuram Circle. The impugned order pertains to the tax period from April 2022 to March 2023 under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act. The petitioner contended that the order was passed without proper consideration of facts and sought an opportunity to present their grievance. The respondent argued that the writ petition lacked merit and that the petitioner had an alternative remedy. The Court considered the arguments from both sides.
Held
The Court, with the consent of both parties, disposed of the writ petition at the admission stage. The Court directed the petitioner to deposit 25% of the disputed tax amount within 30 days of receiving the order. Additionally, the petitioner was directed to file a reply to the show cause notice within the same 30-day period. Upon compliance with these directions, the impugned order dated 03.12.2024 would stand quashed and be treated as a corrigendum or addendum to the original show cause notice. The respondent was then directed to pass appropriate orders on the show cause notice on merits and in accordance with law, after providing the petitioner with a hearing. No order was made as to costs.
Key Issues
1. Whether the impugned order dated 03.12.2024, passed by the respondent, is illegal and in violation of the principles of law, considering the petitioner's submission that it was passed without proper consideration of facts? (Question of law and fact) Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the impugned order was passed without considering the facts in proper perspective and sought an opportunity to ventilate their grievance. They relied on the principle that a fair hearing is essential before an order is passed. Respondent's contention: The respondent contended that the writ petition is devoid of merits and that the petitioner has an alternate remedy. They did not explicitly address the petitioner's claim of lack of proper consideration of facts, other than asserting the petition's lack of merit.
Sections Cited
Central Goods and Services Tax Act
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Before: and
This writ petition has been filed against the impugned order, dated 03.12.2024 passed for a tax period from April 2022 to March 2023 under the provisions of the respective Central Goods and Services Tax Act by the respondent herein.
The impugned order has been preceded by notice to which the petitioner has not replied. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that one opportunity may be granted to the petitioner to vent out his grievance as the impugned order has been passed without considering the facts in proper perspective.
The learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondent on the other hand submits that the writ petition is devoid of merits. In any event, it is submitted that the petitioner has an alternate remedy. 2/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondent.
With the consent of both sides, the writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage with the following directions: (i) The petitioner is directed to deposit 25% of the disputed tax amount within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. (ii) The petitioner is directed to file reply to the show cause notice issued earlier within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. (iii) Subject to such compliance, the impugned order shall stand quashed. (iv) The impugned order stands quashed shall be treated as corrigendum/addendum to the show cause notice issued earlier. (v) The respondent is directed to pass appropriate orders on the show cause notice on merits and in accordance with law after hearing the petitioner. 3/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
2025 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No sn To The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, State Tax Office, Ettayapuram Circle, No.10-1 , ST-3, Kansapuram, Kadalayoor Road, Ettayapuram, Thoothukudi Dist-628902. 4/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.SARAVANAN, J.
sn
2025 5/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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.