Tvl Well Kamraj Pick And Pay Represented By Its Managing Partner Moses J Nadar vs. The Commercial Tax Officer
Facts
The petitioner, Tvl.Well Kamraj Pick and Pay, represented by its Managing Partner, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 06.11.2024, issued by the Commercial Tax Officer. This order confirmed a demand for the tax period 2017-18. The impugned order followed notices in DRC 01A (dated 30.01.2024) and DRC 01 (dated 24.07.2024), along with three personal hearing notices. The petitioner had not responded to these notices, leading to the confirmation of the demand against them. The writ petition was disposed of at the admission stage with the consent of both parties.
Held
The Court quashed the impugned order dated 06.11.2024. The case was remitted back to the respondent for fresh consideration. This relief was granted on the condition that the petitioner deposits 25% of the disputed tax in cash from their Electronic Cash Register within thirty days of receiving a copy of the order. The petitioner was also directed to file a reply to the notice in DRC 01 dated 24.07.2024, treating the impugned order as an addendum to the Show Cause Notice. If these conditions are met, the respondent is to pass fresh orders on merits and in accordance with law, preferably within three months after hearing the petitioner. The Court noted that it was taking a similar approach as in previous cases with similar circumstances. Failure to comply with the stipulations would allow the respondent to proceed as if the writ petition was dismissed in limine.
Key Issues
1. Whether the impugned order dated 06.11.2024, confirming the demand for the tax period 2017-18, should be quashed, considering the petitioner's failure to respond to prior notices and personal hearing notices. Petitioner's contention: The petitioner sought to quash the impugned order. While the judgment does not explicitly detail the petitioner's arguments, it implies a request for relief based on the circumstances. Respondent's contention: The respondent, the Commercial Tax Officer, issued the impugned order confirming the demand due to the petitioner's non-response to statutory notices and personal hearings.
Sections Cited
DRC 01, DRC 01A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Before: and
This Writ Petition is disposed of at the time of admission with the consent of the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Advocate for the
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Madras High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.