T.C.No.10 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 22.04.2025 CORAM : THE HON'BLE MR.K.R.SHRIRAM, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ Tax Case (Revision) No.10 of 2025 and C.M.P.No.3357 of 2025 Sri Mahaa Enterprises, rep. by its Proprietrix V.Mahalakshmi, Cutchery Road, Mayiladuthurai-609 001. .. Petitioner Vs The State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by the Joint Commissioiner (ST), Trichy Division, Trichy-1. .. Respondent PRAYER: Revision under Section 60(1) of the TNVAT Act, 2006 with Rule 14(13) of the TNVAT Rules, 2007 to set aside the impugned order dated 10.09.2024 in Appeal No. STA 149 of 2022 on the file of the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (Main Bench), Chennai. For Petitioner: Mr.M.Narasimha Bharathi For Respondent: Mr.C.Harsha Raj Special Government Pleader ___________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis T.C.No.10 of 2025 ORDER (Order of the Court was made by the Hon'ble Chief Justice) Petitioner has alleged that an ex parte order was passed by the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal on 10th September, 2024. Petitioner states petitioner was not aware of the hearing having taken place on 22nd August, 2024 when the matter was taken up. 2. In the affidavit filed by petitioner, affirmed on 26th March, 2025, it is stated that the husband of proprietrix of petitioner firm received a notice in Mayiladuthurai on 14 th February, 2023 informing him about the hearing scheduled on 17 th April, 2023 at 10.30 A.M. Petitioner states that the husband of proprietrix of petitioner firm had handed over the papers to the tax consultant, who did not take further steps. 3. There is a counter filed by one Mr.K.C.S.Aruna Bharathi, affirmed on 8th April, 2025. In that, there is a reference to the notice being served about the hearing on 17 th April, 2023. But, thereafter, there is nothing to indicate that petitioner was informed about the hearing that took place on ___________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis T.C.No.10 of 2025 22nd August, 2024. 4. Therefore, in our view, this is a fit case for us to interfere. The impugned order is quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded to the Tribunal for de novo hearing. 5. Petitioner states that, within two weeks, petitioner shall file vakalatnama on behalf of respondent in S.T.A.No.149 of 2022. Counsel assures the Court that on the next date or any other date fixed by the Tribunal, petitioner shall remain present. 6. Tax Case (Revision) is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, interim application is closed. (K.R.SHRIRAM, C.J.) (MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ,J.) 22.04.2025 Index : Yes/No NC : Yes/No bbr ___________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis T.C.No.10 of 2025 To: 1. The Manager Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal Chennai – 600 104. 2. The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (ST) Cuddalore. 3. The State Tax Officer Mayiladuthurai. 4. The Joint Commissioner (ST) Trichy Division, Trichy-1. ___________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis T.C.No.10 of 2025 THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ ,J. bbr Tax Case (Revision) No.1 0 of 2025 22.04.2025 ___________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis