P.Senthilkumar vs. The Assistant Commissioner

Held

The Court decided to quash the impugned order dated 10.09.2024 and the rectification order dated 01.04.2025. The reasoning was based on the Court's previous practice of coming to the rescue of similarly situated individuals by quashing orders on the condition of depositing 25% of the disputed tax. The Court found no reason to deviate from this established practice. The operative directions included quashing the impugned orders and remitting the case back to the respondent for passing fresh orders. This was made conditional upon the petitioner depositing 25% of the disputed tax in cash from their Electronic Cash Register within thirty days of receiving the order. The petitioner was also directed to file a reply to the notice in DRC 01 dated 21.06.2024, treating the impugned orders as an addendum to the Show Cause Notice. The respondent was instructed to proceed with passing fresh orders on merits and in accordance with law, preferably within three months after hearing the petitioner, if the conditions were met. Failure to comply would allow the respondent to proceed as if the writ petition was dismissed. No issue was expressly left undecided.

Facts

The petitioner, P. Senthilkumar, filed a writ petition before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court challenging an order dated 10.09.2024 and a subsequent rectification order dated 01.04.2025, both issued by the Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department. These orders pertained to the tax period 2018-19. The impugned order was preceded by notices in DRC 01A and DRC 01, along with multiple personal hearing notices. However, the petitioner did not respond to these notices, leading to the demand being confirmed. The petitioner sought to quash these orders on grounds of lack of jurisdiction and violation of statutory provisions.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned orders, issued by the respondent authority for the tax period 2018-19, are liable to be quashed for lack of jurisdiction and violation of statutory provisions, as contended by the petitioner? The petitioner argued that the impugned orders were passed without jurisdiction and in clear violation of statutory provisions. The petitioner sought to quash these orders. The respondent, represented by the Additional Government Pleader, did not present specific arguments against the petitioner's claims in the judgment, but the Court noted that the petitioner had not responded to the notices issued by the respondent. The Court, however, referred to its previous decisions in similar circumstances.