M/S. T.V.L Lifna Exporters LLP vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer (St)-2

Held

The Court decided to quash the impugned assessment order dated January 30, 2025, on terms. The reasoning was based on the Court's previous decisions in similar circumstances where assessment orders were quashed subject to the payment of a portion of the disputed tax. The Court found no reason to deviate from this established practice. The ratio decidendi is that in cases where an assessment order is passed due to a failure to respond to a show cause notice, the High Court can grant relief by quashing the order, provided the petitioner complies with certain conditions. The operative directions are that the petitioner must 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 assessment order will be treated as an addendum to the show cause notice. The respondent is directed to pass a fresh order on merits after hearing the petitioner. The Court explicitly stated that failure to comply with these conditions would result in the writ petition being deemed dismissed.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s.T.V.L.Lifna Exporters LLP, filed a writ petition challenging an assessment order dated January 30, 2025, passed by the Deputy State Tax Officer (ST)-2, Tuticorin, for the tax period 2020-2021. The impugned order was issued after a show cause notice dated November 24, 2024, to which the petitioner failed to respond. The petitioner sought to quash this assessment order as unconstitutional. The respondents are the Deputy State Tax Officer and two Appellate Deputy Commissioners.

Key Issues

1. Whether the assessment order dated 30.01.2025, passed by the first respondent, is liable to be quashed as unconstitutional, given the petitioner's failure to reply to the show cause notice dated 24.11.2024. Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner sought to quash the assessment order. While the judgment does not explicitly detail the petitioner's arguments, it implies a challenge to the order, likely on procedural grounds or merits, which were not elaborated upon due to the petitioner's non-response to the show cause notice. Revenue's Arguments: The revenue's position is implicit in the issuance of the assessment order following the petitioner's failure to respond to the show cause notice. The judgment does not record specific arguments made by the revenue before the High Court, other than their role as respondents.