Tvl. Karthik Traders vs. The Commercial Tax Officer

Facts

The petitioner, Tvl. Karthik Traders, represented by its Proprietor, R. Karthikaichamy, filed a writ petition challenging an ex-parte order dated 08.05.2025, issued by the respondent, The Commercial Tax Officer, Ramanathapuram Assessment Circle. The order pertains to the assessment year 2022-23. The petitioner contended that the order was passed without jurisdiction and in clear violation of statutory provisions. The appeal period for the impugned order had expired. The petitioner sought to quash the order. The respondent is the revenue authority.

Held

The Court acknowledged that the petitioner had suffered an ex-parte order and that the appeal period had expired. Instead of quashing the order outright, the Court permitted the petitioner to file an appeal within thirty days from the date of receipt of a copy of the Court's order. This appeal is to be entertained without reference to the limitation period. However, the petitioner is required to pay 10% of the disputed tax amount as a pre-deposit. The Court clarified that if the petitioner fails to remit the pre-deposit or file the appeal within the stipulated thirty days, the benefit granted by this order will stand automatically recalled. The Court disposed of the writ petition with these directions. The issue of jurisdiction and violation of statutory provisions was not directly decided but addressed by providing an avenue for appeal.

Key Issues

1. Whether the ex-parte order dated 08.05.2025, issued by the respondent for the assessment year 2022-23, is without jurisdiction and in violation of statutory provisions, warranting quashing under Article 226 of the Constitution of India? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the impugned order was passed without jurisdiction and in clear violation of statutory provisions. The petitioner sought the quashing of this order. Respondent's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondent. However, the court's order suggests that the respondent's action (passing the ex-parte order) was the subject of challenge.