M/S. City Departmental Store vs. The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. City Departmental Store, represented by its Proprietor Shiek Fareed, filed a writ petition challenging an ex-parte order dated 21.02.2025, passed by the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Palani -I Assessment Circle. The petitioner contended that the order was passed without jurisdiction and in violation of statutory provisions. The appeal period for the impugned order had expired. The respondent is the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer. The specific tax period and the amount in dispute are not explicitly stated in the provided text. The procedural history involves the petitioner filing a writ petition after the appeal period expired.

Held

The Court acknowledged that the petitioner suffered an ex-parte order and that the appeal period had expired. However, considering the special facts and circumstances, the Court condoned the delay in filing the appeal. The petitioner was directed to file an appeal within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. As a pre-condition for condoning the delay and entertaining the appeal, the petitioner was required to pay 10% of the disputed tax amount as pre-deposit. The Court clarified that if the petitioner fails to remit the pre-deposit or file the appeal within the stipulated period, the benefit of this order would stand recalled automatically. The Court disposed of the writ petition with these directions.

Key Issues

1. Whether the ex-parte order dated 21.02.2025, passed by the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, is without jurisdiction and in violation of statutory provisions, warranting quashing by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India? The petitioner argued that the order suffered from jurisdictional error and statutory non-compliance. The respondent, represented by the Additional Government Pleader, did not present specific arguments against the petitioner's claim in the provided text, but their presence indicates opposition to the writ petition. The judgment does not record specific arguments from the respondent regarding the merits of the petitioner's challenge to the ex-parte order.