Tvl.Rr Traders vs. The Proper Officer / The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer

Held

The Court held that the impugned order dated 19.12.2025 was issued without hearing the petitioner, which is a clear breach of the principles of natural justice. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned order. This decision was made conditional upon the petitioner remitting 25% of the tax demand under the impugned order within thirty (30) days from the date of receipt of a copy of the Court's order. Upon fulfillment of this condition, the petitioner would be provided with an opportunity to contest the matter on merits. The Court directed that a fresh order should be issued by the respondent within five (5) months from the date of remittance of the 25% tax demand, after providing a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner. The bank attachment relating to the impugned order would be raised subject to the fulfillment of the remittance condition. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.

Facts

The petitioner, Tvl. RR Traders, represented by its Proprietor, L. Revathy, filed a writ petition before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court. The petition challenged an order dated 19.12.2025, issued by the Proper Officer/Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, State Tax Officer, Tenkasi District. The petitioner sought to quash this order, citing gross violation of principles of natural justice, judicial discipline, arbitrariness, perversity, and violation of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. The tax period in question is 2021-22, and the impugned order is referenced by GSTIN No. 33BJHPR5188K1ZM/2021-22 and Reference No. ZD331225313663P. The procedural history indicates that the impugned order was passed without hearing the petitioner.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order dated 19.12.2025, issued by the Respondent, is liable to be quashed for gross violation of the principles of natural justice, as argued by the Petitioner? The Petitioner contended that the impugned order was passed without affording them an opportunity of being heard, thus violating the principles of natural justice. They also argued that the order was arbitrary, perverse, and violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. The Petitioner, on instructions, agreed to pay 25% of the disputed tax demand under the impugned order as a condition for remand. The Respondent, represented by the Special Government Pleader, accepted notice. The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the Respondent against the Petitioner's contentions, other than accepting notice and appearing before the court.