Madhucon Projects Ltd vs State Tax Officer
2025 Latest Caselaw 33 Mad

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 33 Mad
Judgement Date : 1 April, 2025

Madras High Court

Madhucon Projects Ltd vs State Tax Officer on 1 April, 2025

Author: G.R.Swaminathan

Bench: G.R.Swaminathan

                                                                         1             W.A.(MD)NO.1628 OF 2021

                            BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
                                                  DATED : 01.04.2025
                                                               CORAM
                                  THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN
                                                                 AND
                                       THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN
                                              W.A.(MD)No.1628 of 2021 AND
                                               C.M.P.(MD)No.7057 of 2021

                     Madhucon Projects Ltd.,
                     Rep. by GVLN Sastry, Manager(F&A),
                     KM 216, NH 45, Madurai Tuticorin Road,
                     Senthilkkari, Ettayapuram,
                     Tuticorin 628 902.                 ... Appellant / Petitioner

                                                                   Vs.

                     State Tax Officer,
                     Ettayapuram,
                     Tuticorin District – 628 902.                           ... Respondent /Respondent



                                  Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, to
                     set aside the order dated 09.04.2021 passed in W.P.(MD)No.15161 of
                     2020 on the file of this Court and allow the present writ appeal.


                                  For Appellant     : Mr.Joseph Prabhakar

                                  For Respondent : Mr.R.Suresh Kumar,
                                                   Additional Government Pleader.
                                                          ***



                     1/6


https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis                   ( Uploaded on: 30/04/2025 12:20:45 pm )
                                                                       2              W.A.(MD)NO.1628 OF 2021

                                                        JUDGMENT

(Order of the Court was delivered by G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.)

Heard both sides.

2. Earlier, the writ petitioner filed W.P.(MD)Nos.11540 to

11543 of 2018 and they were allowed vide order dated 09.07.2018

on the ground that personal hearing was not afforded to the assessee.

The matter was remitted to the file of the assessing authority. The

assessing authority thereafter issued personal hearing notice dated

03.09.2020. The assessee appeared through his counsel through

Whatsapp mode. The assessee also filed detailed written

submissions.

3. The grievance of the assessee is that thereafter, the

impugned order dated 09.09.2020 came to be passed without

considering any of the contentions raised by them. Challenging the

same, they filed W.P.(MD)No.15161 of 2020. The learned single Judge

dismissed the writ petition vide order dated 09.04.2021 on the

ground that the assessee can as well file an alternative appeal.

Challenging the same, this writ appeal came to be filed.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/04/2025 12:20:45 pm )

4. Even though before raising the arguments, the learned

counsel appearing for the appellant on instructions submitted that

this Court may set aside the order impugned in the writ petition and

remit to the file of the authority and that the appellant without

prejudice to their contentions would pay 5% of disputed tax. The

said undertaking is placed on record.

5. When a quasi judicial authority passes an order, it has to be a

speaking order. The authority must address the various contentions

raised by the assessee. In this case, the assessee has raised a host of

contentions. Unfortunately, the order impugned in the writ petition

does not advert to any of the contentions. On the other hand, the

earlier demand has been mechanically reproduced. It clearly betrays

non-application of mind. On this ground, the order impugned in the

writ petition is quashed. The order of the learned single Judge

dismissing the writ petition is set aside. The matter is remitted to the

file of the respondent.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/04/2025 12:20:45 pm )

6. The appellant shall remit 5% of the disputed tax on or before

09.05.2025. The assessee will appear before the respondent with all

necessary documents on 12.05.2025 at 11.00 a.m. The assessing

authority will once again hear the appellant or his legal

representative. The appellant is at liberty to file fresh written

arguments. The assessing officer shall advert to all the contentions

before passing fresh order. The benefit of this order will stand

automatically vacated if the appellant fails to abide by the

undertaking of remitting 5% of the disputed tax. This writ appeal

stands allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous

petitions are closed.

(G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.) & (M.JOTHIRAMAN, J.) 01st April 2025 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/ No PMU

To:

The State Tax Officer, Ettayapuram, Tuticorin District – 628 902.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/04/2025 12:20:45 pm )

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/04/2025 12:20:45 pm )

G.R.SWAMINATHAN,J.