Abirami Wood And Furnitures vs. The State Tax Officer(St)

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Abirami Wood and Furnitures, represented by its Proprietor, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 21.08.2024 issued by the respondent, the State Tax Officer, Tenkasi Assessment Circle. This order pertained to the assessment year 2019-2020. The impugned order was preceded by a show cause notice dated 22.05.2024. The petitioner approached the High Court without filing a reply to the show cause notice, having "slept over its rights". The Court noted that in similar circumstances, it had previously quashed assessment orders on the condition of paying 25% of the disputed tax.

Held

The Court held that while a writ petition challenging an order without replying to the show cause notice is generally not entertainable, it would provide relief on terms, following its previous practice. The Court quashed the impugned order dated 21.08.2024 on the condition that the petitioner deposits 25% of the disputed tax in cash from the Electronic Cash Register within 30 days of receiving the order. The petitioner was also directed to file a reply to the show cause notice within the same period. The impugned order, now quashed, was to be treated as an addendum to the show cause notice. The respondent was directed 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. No costs were imposed. The issue of jurisdiction and violation of statutory provisions, as raised by the petitioner, was not decided on merits due to the procedural default and the conditional relief granted.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable when the petitioner has failed to reply to the show cause notice and has approached the High Court directly challenging the impugned order? (Question of law and procedure) Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner sought to quash the impugned order on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction and violation of statutory provisions. (Implicitly, the petitioner argued that the order should be set aside due to these fundamental flaws, even if a reply to the show cause notice was not filed). Respondent's Contention: The respondent, through the Additional Government Pleader, submitted that the writ petition cannot be entertained as the petitioner has not replied to the show cause notice and has approached the Court directly. (Implicitly, the respondent argued that the petitioner had not exhausted the available remedies and had not followed the prescribed procedure).