Tvl. A.L.K. Electricals vs. The State Tax Officer (Fac)

Facts

The petitioner, Tvl. A.L.K. Electricals, filed a writ petition challenging the proceedings of the second respondent (Deputy State Tax Officer) in attachment to DRC-07 dated 28.11.2025 and the consequential order dated 23.06.2026 passed by the first respondent (State Tax Officer) for the assessment year 2021-22. These orders were preceded by a show cause notice dated 11.09.2025 and subsequent reminders. The petitioner failed to file a reply or appear for personal hearings, leading to the impugned order. The petitioner, represented by its Proprietor Muthuchamy Kannan, agreed to pre-deposit 25% of the disputed tax amount.

Held

The Court quashed the impugned proceedings of attachment to DRC-07 dated 28.11.2025 and the consequential order dated 23.06.2026. The case was remitted back to the first respondent for a fresh order, subject to the petitioner depositing 25% of the disputed tax in cash from its electronic cash register within thirty days of receiving the order. The petitioner was also directed to file a reply to the show cause notice dated 11.09.2025, treating the impugned order as an addendum. If these conditions were met, the first respondent was to pass a final order on merits within two months of the reply/pre-deposit. The attachment of the petitioner's bank account would stand vacated upon compliance. The Court clarified that if the petitioner failed to comply, the respondents were at liberty to proceed with recovery. The first respondent was also mandated to issue due notice before passing any further order. The issue of the quantum of the disputed tax and the merits of the petitioner's case were expressly left to be decided by the first respondent.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned proceedings of attachment to DRC-07 dated 28.11.2025 and the consequential order dated 23.06.2026, passed by the respondents for the assessment year 2021-22, are liable to be quashed? (Mixed question of law and fact). Petitioner's contention: The petitioner sought to quash the impugned orders and requested an opportunity for a personal hearing. The petitioner agreed to deposit 25% of the disputed tax amount as a condition for de novo adjudication. Revenue's contention: The revenue, represented by the State Tax Officer and Deputy State Tax Officer, did not explicitly record any arguments against the petitioner's request for a personal hearing and de novo adjudication, given the petitioner's willingness to pre-deposit a portion of the disputed tax.