Tvl. A.L.K. Electricals vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer - I

Facts

The petitioner, Tvl. A.L.K. Electricals, filed a writ petition before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court challenging an order dated 13.01.2025 passed by the respondent, The Deputy State Tax Officer - I, Devakottai Assessment Circle. This order was issued for the tax period 2020-21. The impugned order followed a show cause notice dated 21.11.2024 and subsequent reminders. The petitioner had neither filed a reply nor appeared for the personal hearings scheduled. The petitioner, through their counsel, expressed willingness to pre-deposit 50% of the disputed tax amount as a condition for de novo adjudication.

Held

The Court held that the impugned order dated 13.01.2025, passed by the respondent for the tax period 2020-21, should be quashed. The case was remitted back to the respondent for passing a fresh order. This decision was made conditional upon the petitioner depositing 50% of the disputed tax in cash from their electronic cash register within thirty days of receiving the order. Additionally, the petitioner must file a reply to the show cause notice dated 21.11.2024, along with supporting documents, treating the impugned order as an addendum. If these conditions are met, the respondent shall pass a final order on merits within two months of receiving the reply and pre-deposit. The attachment of the petitioner's bank account, if any, shall be automatically vacated subject to compliance. The Court clarified that the bank attachment would be lifted only if the 50% deposit is made and the petitioner has no other arrears for different tax periods. If the petitioner fails to comply, the respondent is at liberty to proceed with recovery as if the writ petition was dismissed. The respondent must issue due notice before passing any further order.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order dated 13.01.2025, passed by the respondent for the tax period 2020-21, should be quashed and the matter remitted back for fresh adjudication, considering the petitioner's willingness to pre-deposit 50% of the disputed tax? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that they are willing to deposit 50% of the disputed tax amount and sought an opportunity for a fresh adjudication. They made an endorsement in the court bundle confirming this willingness. Revenue's contention: The judgment records no specific argument from the revenue's side, other than their counsel taking notice and appearing for the hearing.