Pkm International Represented By Its Proprietor vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St) (Fac)

Held

The Court decided to quash the impugned order dated 23.02.2023 and remit the case back to the respondent. The reasoning was based on the petitioner's submission that they were unaware of the notices and the respondent's consideration of these submissions. The Court granted relief by allowing the petitioner to deposit 10% of the disputed tax. The impugned order was to be treated as an addendum to the show cause notice dated 15.12.2022. The petitioner was directed to file a final reply to the show cause notice within 30 days of receiving the order, and the respondent was to pass a fresh order on merits within three months. The ratio decidendi is that where a party demonstrates genuine unawareness of prior notices and seeks an opportunity to be heard, and is willing to comply with a partial deposit, the High Court, in its writ jurisdiction, can quash the ex-parte order and allow for a fresh adjudication on merits. No issue was expressly left undecided.

Facts

The petitioner, PKM International, represented by its Proprietor Balathandayutham, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 23.02.2023 passed by the Assistant Commissioner (ST) (FAC), Tenkasi, for the tax period April 2019 to March 2020. The petitioner contended that they were unaware of the notices preceding the impugned order due to being a "small time operator" and consequently did not participate in the proceedings or file an appeal within the stipulated time. The respondent is the Assistant Commissioner (ST) (FAC), Tenkasi.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order dated 23.02.2023, passed by the respondent, should be quashed on the grounds that the petitioner was unaware of the preceding notices and did not participate in the proceedings, thereby being denied an opportunity to reply to the show cause notice dated 15.12.2022? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that as a "small time operator," they were unaware of the notices issued by the respondent and therefore could not participate in the assessment proceedings. They sought an opportunity to reply to the show cause notice. Respondent's contention: The respondent, represented by the Additional Government Pleader, made submissions which were considered by the Court. The judgment does not explicitly detail the respondent's arguments beyond stating that the Court considered their submissions.