Tvl Fe Nerve Building vs. The State Tax Officer

Held

The Court, while acknowledging the petitioner's submission regarding the change of address and the prior quashing of assessment orders, decided to grant a final opportunity to the petitioner. The Court held that the petitioner must deposit an additional 25% of the disputed tax amount (over and above the Rs.7,02,457/- already recovered) in cash within 30 days. Concurrently, the petitioner must file a reply to the respondent within the same period. Subject to compliance, the respondent is directed to re-examine the case afresh and pass final orders on merits within three months thereafter. The Court clarified that the previously quashed order and the currently impugned orders would be treated as addendums to the notices issued. Failure to comply with the deposit or filing of the reply would automatically revoke the Court's order, allowing the respondent to proceed as per law. The Court also directed the de-freezing of the petitioner's bank account upon pre-deposit.

Facts

The petitioner, Tvl.Fe.Nerve Building, represented by its Proprietor M.Balamurugan, filed five writ petitions challenging assessment orders dated 11.12.2023 passed by the State Tax Officer, Thanjavur II Assessment Circle, for the tax periods 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, and 2016-17. This is the second round of litigation; the petitioner had previously challenged assessment orders for the same periods in W.P.(MD) Nos.6811 to 6814 of 2018, which were disposed of on 04.03.2021. The petitioner claims that notices issued after the previous order went unnoticed due to a change in address from Thanjavur to Tirupathur, leading to the current adverse orders. The respondent contends that notices were sent to the petitioner's email ID and GST portal, and the petitioner has abused court proceedings.

Key Issues

1. Whether the assessment orders dated 11.12.2023 are liable to be quashed as illegal and devoid of merits, considering the petitioner's claim of not receiving notices due to a change of address and the previous quashing of assessment orders on 04.03.2021. (Mixed question of law and fact, concerning principles of natural justice and procedural compliance). Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contends that notices issued by the respondent pursuant to the order dated 04.03.2021 were not received as the petitioner had shifted its address from Thanjavur to Tirupathur. The petitioner tenders an unconditional apology for non-participation, stating unawareness of the notices. The petitioner also notes that Rs.7,02,457/- has already been recovered. Respondent's arguments: The respondent argues that the writ petitions are devoid of merits and abuse court proceedings. The respondent asserts that notices were sent to the petitioner's registered email ID and GST portal, even after the address change, and therefore, the petitioner's claim of non-receipt is unfounded. The respondent states that the petitioner failed to cooperate, necessitating the impugned order.