Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
C. SARAVANAN, J
Tvl. Arokiya Matha Timber, Rep. By its Proprietor John Rose David – Appellant
Versus
The Deputy State Tax Officer-II – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. submission and confirmation of tax order based on non-response. (Para 4) |
| 2. counsel for respondent acknowledges legal representation. (Para 5) |
| 3. violation of natural justice through non-consideration of response. (Para 6) |
| 4. setting aside of prior order with direction for fresh hearing. (Para 7) |
| 5. final disposal of the writ petition. (Para 8) |
ORDER
Mrs.P.Selvi, learned Government Advocate, takes notice for the Respondent.
2. This Writ Petition is being disposed of at the stage of admission itself with the consent of the learned counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Government Advocate for the Respondent.
3. The petitioner is before this Court against the impugned order dated
09.10.2025, whereby the proposal in the Show Cause Notice in DRC-01 dated 16.09.2024 issued for the tax period 2019-2020 has been confirmed. The Operative Portion of the impugned order, which reads as under:
Summary of Defects/Discrepancies The notices sent through common portal, the taxpayer neither filed objection nor availed the opportunity of personal hearing to contest the proposal found in the notices. Therefore it is construed that the taxpayers have no objection to the proposals, and in
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
