M/S Thirumala Balaji And Co vs. The Commercial Tax Officer

Facts

The petitioner, M/s.Thirumala Balaji & CO, represented by its partner S.Srinivasan, filed a writ petition challenging an ex-parte order dated 18.07.2024 (Ref.No, ZD330724209093O) issued by the respondent, the Commercial Tax Officer, Rajapalayam 1 Assessment Circle. The petitioner contended that the order was passed without jurisdiction and in violation of statutory provisions. The ex-parte order was passed on 21.02.2025, and the appeal period had already expired. The petitioner sought to quash this order. The writ petition was filed belatedly.

Held

The Court acknowledged that the petitioner suffered an ex-parte order at the hands of the respondent, passed on 21.02.2025. Recognizing that the appeal period had expired, the Court permitted the petitioner to file an appeal within 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, to be entertained without reference to limitation. As a condition for this indulgence, the petitioner was directed to pay 10% of the disputed tax amount as pre-deposit. However, due to the belated approach of the petitioner, the Court enhanced this pre-deposit to 15% of the disputed tax amount. The Court further stipulated that if the petitioner fails to remit the pre-deposit amount and/or file the appeal within four weeks, the benefit of this order would stand recalled automatically. Upon filing the appeal, the attachment effected on the petitioner's bank account was to be raised forthwith. The writ petition was disposed of with these directions.

Key Issues

1. Whether the ex-parte order dated 18.07.2024, issued by the respondent, is without jurisdiction and in violation of statutory provisions, warranting quashing. Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the ex-parte order passed by the respondent was without jurisdiction and a clear violation of statutory provisions. They sought to quash this order through a writ of certiorari. Respondent's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondent. However, the court's directions imply that the respondent's action led to an ex-parte order and attachment of the petitioner's bank account.