M/S.Muthusamy Mukesh vs. The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (St)

Facts

The petitioner, M/s.Muthusamy Mukesh, filed four writ petitions challenging orders passed by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (ST) (1st Respondent) dated 08.04.2025. These orders confirmed assessment orders passed by the State Tax Officer (2nd Respondent) for various tax periods: July 2017 to March 2018, April 2018 to March 2019, April 2019 to March 2020, and April 2022 to March 2023. The petitioner sought to quash these orders and requested a direction for the 1st Respondent to redo the adjudication after affording a personal hearing. The matter was taken up for final disposal at the admission stage by consent.

Held

The Court, considering the submissions of both parties, did not delve into the merits of the assessment or appellate orders. Instead, it focused on facilitating the petitioner's right to appeal. The Court granted liberty to the petitioner to file appeals, subject to the condition of paying 10% of the disputed tax in addition to the statutory deposit already made. The Court directed the petitioner to make this payment within three weeks of receiving the order. Upon receipt of this payment, the 1st Respondent was directed to accept the petitioner's appeals on record and dispose of them in accordance with the law. The Court explicitly did not decide on the legality or arbitrariness of the impugned orders, but rather provided a procedural path forward.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned orders passed by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (ST) are arbitrary, illegal, and unsustainable in law, warranting quashing and a direction for fresh adjudication with a personal hearing? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the impugned orders confirming the assessment orders were arbitrary and illegal. They sought a direction to redo the adjudication strictly in accordance with law, emphasizing the need for a due opportunity of personal hearing. Revenue's Contention: The revenue, through the learned Additional Government Pleader, stated that if the petitioner paid 10% of the disputed tax over and above the statutory deposit already made at the time of filing appeals, the petitioner's appeals would be considered. The revenue did not otherwise contest the petitioner's plea for a fresh adjudication.