Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Saravana Textiles, represented by its proprietor Mr. Saravanan Murugesan, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the Madras High Court. The petition sought a writ of certiorari to quash an order dated 30.08.2024 passed by the State Tax Officer (formerly Commercial Tax Officer), J.J. Nagar Assessment Circle, Chennai, in Reference Number ZD 330 824 296 6224/2019-20. The petitioner contended that the impugned order was passed without affording a reasonable opportunity to contest the tax demand on merits, thereby violating principles of natural justice. The writ petition was filed after the expiry of the limitation period. The respondent was represented by Ms. Amirta Poonkodi Dinakaran, Government Counsel (Tax), who accepted notice. Upon perusal of the impugned order, the court observed that it was issued without hearing the petitioner. The petitioner's counsel, on instructions, agreed to remit 50% of the disputed tax demand as a condition for remand, and an endorsement to that effect was made on the bundle. The court, exercising its writ jurisdiction, set aside the impugned order subject to the condition that the petitioner remits 50% of the disputed tax demand within thirty days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. The matter was remanded to the respondent for re-consideration, with a direction to provide a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner and to pass a fresh order within three months from the date of remittance of the 50% amount. The writ petition was disposed of on these terms, and the connected miscellaneous petitions were closed. No order as to costs was made.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Writ of Certiorari - Violation of Natural Justice - The petitioner challenged a tax assessment order dated 30.08.2024 on the ground that no reasonable opportunity of hearing was afforded. The court found that the order was issued without hearing the petitioner, thus violating principles of natural justice. The court set aside the order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration, subject to the condition that the petitioner remits 50% of the disputed tax demand within thirty days. (Paras 1-5) B) Tax Law - Remand with Condition - Pre-deposit - The court, while setting aside the order for lack of hearing, imposed a condition of 50% pre-deposit of the disputed tax demand as a precondition for remand. The petitioner agreed to this condition. The respondent was directed to pass a fresh order within three months of remittance after providing a reasonable opportunity. (Paras 4-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the impugned tax assessment order passed without hearing the petitioner should be set aside on the ground of violation of natural justice, and whether the writ petition filed after limitation should be entertained.
Final Decision
The impugned order is set aside subject to the condition that the petitioner remits 50% of the disputed tax demand within thirty days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The matter is remanded for re-consideration. After providing a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner, a fresh order shall be issued within three months from the date of remittance of 50% of the disputed tax demand. The Writ Petition is disposed of on the above terms. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Law Points
- Natural justice
- reasonable opportunity of hearing
- remand with condition
- pre-deposit for remand
- writ of certiorari
