M/S. Sri Saairam Rice Mill vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)
Held
The Court held that while the petitioner failed to respond to the show cause notice, leading to a significant demand, it was necessary to balance the interests of the revenue with the petitioner's situation. Consequently, the impugned order dated 06.02.2025 was quashed. The case was remitted back to the respondent for passing fresh orders on merits. This was made conditional upon the petitioner depositing 10% of the disputed tax demand (Rs. 4,38,03,389/-) within thirty days of receiving the order. The petitioner was also directed to file a reply to the show cause notice within the same period, treating the quashed order as an addendum. Failure to comply with these conditions would result in the writ petition being dismissed, allowing the respondent to proceed against the petitioner. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.
Facts
The petitioner, M/s. Sri Saairam Rice Mill, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 06.02.2025 passed by the Assistant Commissioner (ST), Pudukkottai, for the assessment year 2020-21. The impugned order was preceded by a show cause notice dated 24.11.2024 and several reminders, along with opportunities for personal hearing. The petitioner claimed to be a small tax assessee who failed to notice these notices and consequently did not respond. By the time the petitioner became aware of the order, the period for filing an appeal had expired. The disputed tax demand was Rs. 4,38,03,389/-.
Key Issues
1. Whether the impugned order dated 06.02.2025, passed by the Assistant Commissioner (ST), Pudukkottai, for the assessment year 2020-21, is liable to be quashed as illegal, arbitrary, and without jurisdiction, necessitating a fresh assessment after affording sufficient opportunity to the petitioner? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that they failed to respond to the show cause notices and subsequent opportunities due to not noticing them, being a small assessee. They also stated that the time for filing an appeal had expired by the time they learned of the order. The petitioner expressed willingness to cooperate with the respondent. Revenue's contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the revenue or state.
Sections Cited
Article 226
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 07.07.2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN and W.M.P(MD)No.14053 of 2025 M/s.Sri Saairam Rice Mill, Represented by its Proprietor, R. Padmini, GSTIN - 33AAIPP4234B1Z5, 200/1B5/5B5/25/65/7, NA, Vagaipatti, Marutham Thalai Road, Panampatti Village, Pudukkottai – 622004. ... Petitioner Vs.
The Assistant Commissioner (ST), Pudukkottai - 1 Assessment Circle, Commercial Tax Building, Pudukkottai. ...Respondent Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records on the file of the respondent in GSTIN - 33AAIPP4234B1Z5/2020-21 dated 06.02.2025 for the assessment year 2020-21 and to quash the same as illegal, arbitrary, wholly without jurisdiction and direct the respondent to issue notice to the petitioner then pass an assessment order afresh after 1/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis affording an sufficient opportunity within such time as may be directed by t
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Madras High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.