Selva Steel Foundry vs. The State Tax Officer

Facts

M/s. Selva Steel Foundry (the petitioner) filed a writ petition before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court challenging an order dated 26.03.2024 passed by the State Tax Officer, Vedasandur Assessment Circle (the respondent) for the assessment year 2018-2019. The impugned order was preceded by a show cause notice dated 30.01.2024. The petitioner approached the Court without filing a reply to the show cause notice. The Court noted that the petitioner had not replied to the show cause notice and had approached the Court after a delay.

Held

The Court decided not to entertain the writ petition on its merits due to the petitioner's failure to respond to the show cause notice and their delayed approach. However, following precedent in similar circumstances, the Court quashed the impugned order on terms. The petitioner was directed to deposit 25% of the disputed tax in cash from the Electronic Cash Register within 30 days of receiving the order. Additionally, the petitioner must file a reply to the show cause notice within a specified time, and the quashed order will be treated as an addendum to the show cause notice. The respondent is to pass a fresh order on merits after hearing the petitioner. The Court made it clear that failure to comply with these conditions would result in the writ petition being deemed dismissed, allowing the respondent to proceed as per GST enactments. No issue was expressly left undecided.

Key Issues

1. Whether a writ petition challenging the correctness of an assessment order can be entertained when the petitioner has not filed a reply to the preceding show cause notice? (Question of law and procedure) Petitioner's contention: The petitioner sought to quash the impugned order on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction and clear violation of statutory provisions. Although not explicitly argued, the filing of the writ petition implies a challenge to the validity of the order. Respondent's contention: The respondent, through its counsel, submitted that the petitioner had slept over its rights and approached the Court belatedly. The respondent argued that a writ petition challenging the correctness of the decision in the impugned order cannot be entertained under these circumstances, especially when no reply was filed to the show cause notice.