M/S.Borneo International Exports vs. The State Tax Officer

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Borneo International Exports, represented by its proprietor, filed a writ petition challenging an ex parte adjudication order dated 21.02.2025 passed by the State Tax Officer, Aranthangi Assessment Circle, Pudukkottai District. The order pertains to the financial year 2020-21. The petitioner contended that the order was illegal, arbitrary, passed without application of mind, and violative of principles of natural justice and statutory provisions. A key grievance was that notice was served only through the online portal, leading to the petitioner's unawareness of the proceedings. The petitioner sought to quash the order and requested a fresh adjudication after a personal hearing and consideration of their evidence.

Held

The Court disposed of the writ petition by quashing the impugned ex parte adjudication order dated 21.02.2025. The Court directed the petitioner to deposit 25% of the disputed tax amount through the electronic cash ledger within thirty days of receiving a copy of the order. Upon compliance, the attachment on the petitioner's bank account would be lifted immediately. The petitioner was also directed to reply to the show cause notice within thirty days thereafter. The respondent (State Tax Officer) was ordered to provide an opportunity for a personal hearing to the petitioner and pass a fresh adjudication order within two months. The Court stipulated that if the petitioner failed to comply with the deposit and reply deadlines, the benefit of this order would be automatically recalled, and the impugned order could be enforced. No costs were awarded.

Key Issues

1. Whether the ex parte adjudication order dated 21.02.2025, passed by the State Tax Officer, is liable to be quashed on the grounds of illegality, arbitrariness, lack of application of mind, and violation of principles of natural justice and statutory provisions, particularly concerning the alleged non-receipt of effective notice by the petitioner? The Petitioner argued that the adjudication order was passed ex parte due to notice being served only through the online portal, which they were allegedly unaware of. They contended that this violated principles of natural justice and statutory provisions, rendering the order illegal and arbitrary. They sought a fresh adjudication with an effective opportunity for personal hearing and consideration of their evidence. The Revenue (State Tax Officer) did not present specific arguments against the petitioner's claims but indicated that in similar matters, relief was granted upon the assessee depositing 25% of the disputed tax amount.