M/S. Sam Agencies vs. State Tax Officer/Commercial Tax Officer

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Sam Agencies, filed a writ petition before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court challenging an order dated 03.04.2024 passed by the State Tax Officer/Commercial Tax Officer, Tuticorin-II, for the assessment year 2017-2018. The petitioner contended that the impugned order was illegal. The Court noted that the petitioner had not replied to the show cause notice, which led to the assessment order being passed against them. The petitioner approached the Court after a significant delay. The respondent, the State Tax Officer, was represented by the Additional Government Pleader.

Held

The Court held that while a writ petition challenging an assessment order, especially when filed late and without responding to the show cause notice, generally cannot be entertained, it found a reason to intervene. The Court noted that in similar circumstances, it had previously quashed assessment orders on the condition of the petitioner paying 25% of the disputed tax. Applying this precedent, the Court decided to dispose of the present writ petition by quashing the impugned order on terms. The petitioner was directed to deposit 25% of the disputed tax in cash within 30 days of receiving the order. Additionally, the petitioner was required to file a reply to the show cause notice within a stipulated time, with the quashed order 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 clarified that failure to comply with these conditions would result in the writ petition being deemed dismissed. No issue was expressly left undecided.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petition, filed after a delay and without replying to the show cause notice, is maintainable for challenging the correctness of the impugned assessment order dated 03.04.2024, passed by the State Tax Officer for the assessment year 2017-2018? The petitioner argued that the impugned order was illegal and sought its quashing, directing the respondent to reconsider the matter. The petitioner's primary contention was the illegality of the order. The respondent, through the Additional Government Pleader, took notice of the petition. The judgment does not explicitly record separate arguments from the respondent beyond acknowledging the petition and its contents. However, the Court's observation that the petitioner "has slept over his rights and approached this Court by way of this Writ Petition" and that such a petition "cannot be entertained" suggests the respondent's implicit stance against entertaining a delayed petition without prior compliance.