Tvl. Jeyarani Shopping Centre vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer -1/The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer

Facts

The petitioner, Tvl. Jeyarani Shopping Centre, represented by its Proprietor Jeyapaul, filed a writ petition before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court challenging an assessment order dated 04.12.2025, passed by the Deputy State Tax Officer-1. The assessment order pertains to the tax period 2021-22. The petitioner primarily contended that the assessment order was passed in breach of the principles of natural justice. The petitioner also submitted that approximately 20% of the tax demand under the impugned order had already been recovered. On instructions, the petitioner's counsel undertook to remit an additional amount to cover 25% of the total tax demand as a condition for remanding the matter for fresh assessment.

Held

The Court held that the impugned assessment order dated 04.12.2025 is set aside, subject to the petitioner fulfilling certain conditions. The primary ground for setting aside the order was the breach of principles of natural justice, as argued by the petitioner. The Court accepted the petitioner's submission regarding the partial recovery of tax and their willingness to remit 25% of the total tax demand. The condition for setting aside the order is that the petitioner must confirm the earlier recovery and remit an additional amount to cover 25% of the tax demand within thirty (30) days from the date of receipt of the order. Upon fulfillment of this condition, the respondent authority is directed to provide a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to contest the matter on merits and issue a fresh order within five (5) months from the date of remittance of 25% of the tax demand. The issue of the merits of the assessment itself was not decided, as the matter was remanded for fresh consideration.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned assessment order dated 04.12.2025, passed by the respondent authority for the tax period 2021-22, is liable to be quashed on the ground of breach of principles of natural justice, as contended by the petitioner? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the assessment order was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice, implying that they were not afforded a proper opportunity to present their case. They also highlighted that a portion of the tax demand (approximately 20%) had already been recovered. The petitioner's counsel further submitted on instructions that they were willing to remit 25% of the total tax demand as a condition for the matter to be reconsidered. Revenue's Arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondent revenue authority. However, the court's order indicates a conditional acceptance of the petitioner's plea for remand.