Tvl. Skp Readymix vs. The Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes
Held
The Court held that the impugned order passed by the third respondent was erroneous because it failed to acknowledge the petitioner's reply to the defects pointed out. The Court noted that in similar cases, it had previously set aside impugned orders and remitted them back to the respondent for fresh consideration. Therefore, the Court found no reason to deviate from this established practice. The Court set aside the impugned order and remitted the case back to the third respondent to pass fresh orders on merits and in accordance with law within three months from the date of receipt of the order. The petitioner was directed to furnish all requisite documents to the second respondent for the fresh adjudication.
Facts
The petitioner, Tvl. SKP Readymix, represented by its Proprietor S. Revathi, filed a writ petition before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court challenging an order dated 13.03.2025, issued by the third respondent, the State Tax Officer, Inspection – II. The petitioner contended that the impugned order was passed despite the petitioner having replied to the defects pointed out. The respondents are the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and two State Tax Officers. The writ petition was disposed of at the admission stage.
Key Issues
1. Whether the impugned order, passed by the third respondent, is liable to be quashed on the ground that it erroneously recorded that the petitioner had not replied to the defects pointed out, when in fact the petitioner had submitted a reply. Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the impugned order is flawed because it wrongly states that no reply was filed by the petitioner to the defects raised. The petitioner asserted that they had indeed submitted a reply, and the adjudicating authority failed to consider it. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondents. However, the Court's observation implies that the respondents' action of passing the order without considering the petitioner's reply was incorrect.
Sections Cited
Section 107
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 23.06.2025 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN and W.M.P.(MD) No.12752 of 2025 Tvl. SKP Readymix, rep. by its Proprietor S.Revathi.
... Petitioner Vs
The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, O/o. the Principal and Special Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Ezhilagam, Chepauk, Chennai - 600 005. 2. The State Tax Officer, Adjudication and Legal, O/o. the Joint Commissioner (ST) (Intelligence), Commercial Taxes Building, 2nd Floor, S.F. No.00/1,7,8,46 - Pudur ‘B’ Village, Erode – 638 002. 3. The State Tax Officer, Inspection – II, O/o. the Joint Commissioner (ST) (Intelligence), Commercial Taxes Building, 2nd Floor, S.F. No.00/1,7,8,46 - Pudur ‘B’ Village, Erode – 638 002. ... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorari to call for records pertaining to impugned order of the 1/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis (*)third respondent in Reference No.ZD330325086800I/2023-24, dated 13.03.2025 and quash the same. For petitioner :
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.