T.Sundarraj vs. The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer 2
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, T. Sundarraj, filed a writ petition before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court challenging an order dated 16.08.2024, issued by the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer-2, Karur-1 (the first respondent) under Section 73 of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (TNGST Act). The petitioner also sought a direction to the Karnataka Bank (the fifth respondent) to unfreeze his savings bank account. The petitioner argued that the impugned order was passed without providing any reasons, contrary to the provisions of Section 73 of the TNGST Act and the guidelines in Circular No.8/2024 dated 29.08.2024 issued by the Commissioner, State Tax. The respondents were the tax authorities and the bank.
Held
The Court held that the impugned order dated 16.08.2024, issued by the first respondent under Section 73 of the TNGST Act, was liable to be interfered with because it was passed without providing any reasons whatsoever. The Court found this to be contrary to the contemplation under Section 73 of the TNGST Act and the guidelines issued by the Commissioner, State Tax, in Circular No.8/2024, dated 29.08.2024. Consequently, the Court allowed the writ petition and set aside the impugned order. The petitioner was directed to appear before the first respondent on 19.02.2025 with a detailed explanation and relevant documents. The first respondent was directed to pass a reasoned order on merits and in accordance with law after hearing the petitioner. No order as to costs was made.
Key Issues
1. Whether the order dated 16.08.2024, passed by the first respondent under Section 73 of the TNGST Act, is liable to be set aside for being devoid of reasons. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the impugned order was illegal as it was passed without assigning any reasons, which is a mandatory requirement under Section 73 of the TNGST Act. Furthermore, the order violated the guidelines issued by the Commissioner, State Tax, in Circular No.8/2024, dated 29.08.2024, which mandates reasoned orders. Revenue's arguments: The judgment records no specific arguments from the revenue or state respondents.
Sections Cited
Section 73
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORDER The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking to quash the order dated 16.08.2024, and consequently direct the fifth respondent to defreeze his Savings Bank Account No.4302500101701401 by considering the representation dated 23.01.2025. 2. Considering the fact that the order had been passed without giving reasons whatsoever as contemplated under Section 73 of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 nor the guidelines issued by the Commissioner, State Tax, Commercial Taxes Department, Ezhilagam, Chennai, in Circular No.8/2024, dated 29.08.2024, the order impugned herein is liable to be interfered with. _________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. The petitioner is directed to appear before the first respondent on 19.02.2025 and submit his detailed explanation along with the relevant documents. After hearing the petitioner on the said date, the first respondent shall pass a reasoned order on merits and in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs.
2025 NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes abr To 1.The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer-2, Karur-1, Karur. 2.The Commercial Tax Officer (State Taxes), Karur-1, Karur. 3.The Deputy Commissioner (State Taxes), Karur District, Karur. 4.The Deputy Commissioner (State Taxes), Erode Division, Erode. _________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis K.KUMARESH BABU, J. abr Dated: 30.01.2025 _________ 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.