M/S. Harisankar Paperboards Private Limited vs. The State Tax Officer

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Harisankar Paperboards Private Limited, filed multiple writ petitions before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court challenging orders passed by the State Tax Officer and Commercial Tax Officer. These orders, dated between July 18, 2024, and December 30, 2024, pertained to various tax periods from 2017-18 to 2021-22. The petitioner also sought directions to the State Bank of India to defreeze its bank account. The revenue authorities were the first and second respondents, and the bank was the third respondent. The writ petitions were taken up for disposal at the admission stage with the consent of the parties.

Held

The Court dismissed the writ petitions. While the petitioner initially sought to quash the impugned orders and defreeze their bank account, they subsequently submitted that they were willing to file appeals against the assessment orders. The Court, considering this submission and the consent of the parties, decided to grant liberty to the petitioner to file appeals before the concerned Appellate Authority. The Court directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- in each case to the District Siddha Medical Officer CCRI PKM as a condition for filing the appeals. Upon production of proof of payment, the Appellate Authority was directed to take the appeals on record and consider them on their merits, without pressing for limitation, and provide sufficient opportunity to the petitioner. The ratio decidendi is that when a party expresses willingness to pursue statutory remedies like appeals, the High Court may, in its discretion, permit them to do so, subject to certain conditions, rather than adjudicating the writ petition on merits.

Key Issues

1. Whether the High Court, in its writ jurisdiction, should quash the impugned assessment orders and direct the defreezing of the petitioner's bank account, given the petitioner's stated willingness to file appeals against these orders? The petitioner argued that they were willing to file appeals against the impugned assessment orders and sought liberty from the Court to do so. They contended that this would be sufficient to address their grievance. The revenue, represented by the learned Additional Government Pleader, requested the Court to pass appropriate orders regarding the filing of appeals on terms. No specific statutory provisions or precedents were cited by either party in the arguments presented before the High Court.