Tvl Ganesh Stores vs. The State Tax Officer
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Tvl Ganesh Stores, represented by its Proprietor, filed two writ petitions challenging assessment orders dated 28.07.2025 and 29.07.2025, passed by the State Tax Officer. The proceedings pertained to mining activities and were initially initiated against M/s. Ganesh Stores, which the petitioner claimed was a mistaken identity for its sister concern, M/s. Blue Metals. A notice in ASMT-10 dated 15.10.2024 was issued to M/s. Ganesh Stores, to which the petitioner filed a reply on 22.10.2024, pointing out the identity mistake. Subsequently, a notice in DRC-01 dated 08.04.2025 was issued to the petitioner. The petitioner did not file a reply to this notice, nor did they appear for three subsequent personal hearing notices issued by the respondent. The impugned orders were then passed.
Held
The Court held that the petitioner had deliberately failed to utilize the opportunities provided to establish their case before the respondent. The Court noted that after the initial reply to ASMT-10, the petitioner did not file a reply to the DRC-01 notice and failed to appear for three subsequent personal hearing notices. Therefore, the Court concluded that the question of violation of the principles of natural justice did not arise. The Court found no reason to interfere with the impugned assessment orders passed by the respondent. However, at the petitioner's request, liberty was granted to file an appeal against the assessment orders, subject to the payment of an additional 10% of the disputed tax amount, over and above the statutory pre-deposit, within three weeks. The Appellate Authority was directed to take the appeal on record and decide it on merits expeditiously if otherwise in order.
Key Issues
1. Whether the assessment orders passed by the respondent are illegal and devoid of merits due to a violation of the principles of natural justice, particularly concerning the petitioner's contention of mistaken identity of the business concern for the tax periods 2021-22 and 2022-23. The petitioner argued that the initial notice was issued to the wrong entity (M/s. Ganesh Stores) and that their reply on 22.10.2024, pointing out this mistake, was not properly considered before the DRC-01 notice and subsequent assessment orders were issued. They contended that the respondent failed to consider their reply and thus acted illegally. The respondent argued that while a reply was filed for ASMT-10, it was not satisfactory, and a DRC-01 notice was issued. The petitioner failed to file a reply to the DRC-01 notice and also failed to appear for three subsequent personal hearing notices. Therefore, the respondent contended that sufficient opportunities were provided, and the principles of natural justice were not violated, warranting dismissal of the petitions.
Sections Cited
Section 226, Article 226
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
COMMON ORDER These writ petitions have been filed challenging the impugned orders dated 28.07.2025 by the respondent.
Mr.R.Suresh Kumar, learned Additional Government Pleader, takes notice on behalf of the respondent.
By consent of the parties, the main petitions are taken up for disposal at the stage of admission itself.
The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in these cases, the impugned order was passed by the respondent in the 2/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)Nos.3490 & 3491 of 2026 name of M/s.Ganesh Stores with regard to mining activities, which is connected to the petitioner's sister concern, namely “M/s.Blue Metals”. In this regard, initially, the notice in ASMT-10 dated 15.10.2024 was issued against M/s.Ganesh Stores. After receipt of the said notice, the petitioner had filed a detailed reply by pointing out the mistake of identity of the business concern. Thereafter, the notice in DRC-01 dated 08.04.2025 was issued to the petitioner, however, no reply was filed by the petitioner for the said notice. Under these circumstances, the impugned orders came to be passed by the respondent without considering the aforesaid reply dated 22.10.2024 filed by the petitioner. Hence, these petitions.
In reply, the learned counsel Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents would submit that in these cases, the respondents, being not satisfied with the reply filed by the petitioner for ASMT-10, had issued a notice in DRC-01 on 08.04.2025. However, no reply was filed by the petitioner for the said DRC-01 notice. Subsequently, three personal hearing notices dated 24.05.2025, 01.07.2025 & 11.07.2025 were also issued by the respondent, however, 3/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)Nos.3490 & 3491 of 2026 the petitioner had failed to appear before the respondent. Under these circumstances, the impugned orders came to be passed by the respondent.
Hence, he would contend that in spite of provision of sufficient opportunities, the petitioner had failed to avail the said opportunities. In such case, the question of violation of principles of natural justice would not arise. Thus, he prays for dismissal of this petition.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondent and also perused the entire materials available on record.
In the cases on hand, the impugned orders were passed by the respondent, with regard to mining activities, in the name of M/s.Ganesh Stores, however, the said data is connected to the petitioner's sister concern, namely “M/s.Blue Metals”. In this regard, the notice in ASMT-10 dated 15.10.2024 was issued against M/s.Ganesh Stores, for which, a detailed reply was filed by the petitioner on 22.10.2024, 4/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)Nos.3490 & 3491 of 2026 whereby, they pointed out the mistake of identity of the business concern.
Upon perusal of the reply dated 22.10.2024, it appears that though the petitioner raised the issue with regard to mistake of identity of the business concern, he had failed to provide necessary details, viz., transaction details, turn-over and GSTR-3B statements pertaining to M/s.Blue Metals (petitioner's sister concern), against which the proceedings is supposed to be initiated by the respondent.
Under these circumstances, the respondents, being not satisfied with the reply dated 22.10.2024, had issued a notice in DRC-01 on 08.04.2025. However, no reply was filed by the petitioner for the said DRC-01 notice. Subsequently, three personal hearing notices dated 24.05.2025, 01.07.2025 & 11.07.2025 were also issued by the respondent, in spite of which, the petitioner had failed to appear before the respondent. 5/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)Nos.3490 & 3491 of 2026
Normally, after participating in the proceedings, it is the duty of an Assessee to verify with regard to the subsequent development in the said proceedings. However, in this case, though the show cause notice and subsequent three reminders/personal hearing notices were issued by the respondent, no steps were taken by the petitioner either to file the reply or to appear before the respondent for personal hearing.
In view of the above, as rightly contended by the respondent, it is clear that the petitioner had deliberately failed to utilise the opportunities to establish his case before the respondent. When such being the case, the question of violation of principles of natural justice would not arise. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned assessment orders passed by the respondent need no interference of this Court.
At this juncture, the petitioner seeks for liberty to file an appeal against the assessment orders and also he undertook to pay additional 10% of disputed tax amount, over and above the statutory pre- deposit, to the respondent. 6/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)Nos.3490 & 3491 of 2026
For all the reasons stated above, this Court is not inclined to entertain these petitions. Therefore, these writ petitions are dismissed. As requested, the liberty is granted to the petitioner to file an appeal against the assessment orders, subject to the payment of additional 10% of disputed tax amount over and above the statutory pre-deposit, in each case, to the respondent-Department within a period of 3 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Upon such payment, the concerned Appellate Authority is directed to take the appeal on record, if it is otherwise in order, and decide the same, on merits and in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible. No cost. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are also closed. 09.02.2026 Speaking/Non-speaking order Index : Yes / No Neutral Citation : Yes / No nsa To The State Tax Officer Sengottai Kollam Main Road Sengottai, Tenkasi District 7/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)Nos.3490 & 3491 of 2026 KRISHNAN RAMASAMY.J., nsa W.P.(MD)Nos.3490 & 3491 of 2026 & W.M.P(MD)Nos.2869 & 2884 of 2026 09.02.2026 8/8 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.