BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 22.01.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY & W.M.P(MD)No.1138 of 2026 M/s. S Subramanian Contractor Represented by Proprietor Sadasivam Subramanian

2/473, Thottakadu Ilupakudi, Sivagangai - 630 202.

... Petitioner Vs.

The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer Thirupathur Assessment Circle Commercial Taxes Building Chinna Thoppu Street, Thirupathur - 630 211.

... Respondents Prayer:

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the respondent in the impugned Order vide Ref. No. ZD330125020735T dated 03.01.2025 and quash the same and direct the Respondent to provide an opportunity to make submissions.

For Petitioner : Mr.Senguttuvan K For Respondent : Mr.R.Suresh Kumar, AGP

ORDER

This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 03.01.2025 passed by the respondent.

2. Mr.R.Suresh Kumar, learned Additional Government Pleader, takes notice on behalf of the respondents.

3. By consent of the parties, the main writ petition is taken up for disposal at the admission stage itself.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in this case, the notice in DRC-01 was issued by the respondent on 13.09.2024. Upon receipt of the said notice, the petitioner, vide communication dated 29.11.2024, seeks for 15 days time to file their reply. Without granting any approval for the petitioner's request, the impugned order came to be passed by the respondent, which is a clear violation of principles of natural justice. Therefore, this petition has been filed.

5. Further, he would submit that now, the petitioner is willing to pay 25% of the disputed tax amount to the respondent. Hence, he requests this Court to grant an opportunity to the petitioner to present their case before the respondent by setting aside the impugned order.

6. On the other hand, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondent would submit that the respondent had passed the impugned order only on 03.01.2025, i.e., after a period of three months from the date of issuance of DRC-01 notice. In such case, the petitioner could have been filed their reply prior to the passing of the said impugned order. Therefore, he would contend that in spite of the provision of sufficient opportunities, the petitioner had failed to avail the same and hence, he prays for dismissal of this petition.

7. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and and the learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondent and also perused the materials available on record.

8. In the case on hand, it is clear that initially, the show cause notice in DRC-01 was issued by the respondent on 13.09.2024. Upon receipt of the said notice, a communication was sent by the petitioner, whereby, he seeks for 15 days time to file their reply. Thereafter, the impugned order came to be passed on 03.01.2025.

9. According to the petitioner, they had waited for communication from the respondent with regard to the extension of 15 days time for filing the reply. However, no such communication was received by the petitioner and hence, they were not in a position to file their reply. 10. On the other hand, it was submitted by the respondent that though the approval for extension of time for filing reply was not communicated to the petitioner, the impugned order came to be passed by the respondent only on 03.01.2025, which is after a period of 3 months from the date of issuance of show cause notice. Hence, the petitioner could have been very well filed their reply prior to the passing of impugned order.

11. Even if the respondent's submission was accepted, upon perusal of the impugned order, it is clear that after the receipt of communication from the petitioner, no notice with regard to the personal hearing was issued by the respondent. Normally, if the respondent is intend to pass any adverse order against the Assessee, under Sec