WP/38024/2026 of P M S PRODUCTIONS Vs THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER ST on 5 October 2026

Order

This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 17.08.2024 passed by the respondent.

2. Ms.Amirta Poonkodi Dinakaran, learned Additional Government Pleader, takes notice on behalf of the respondent.

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 petitioner had changed his place of business, due to which, though the show cause notice was issued by the respondent by way of RPAD, the same was not at all received by the petitioner. Thus, the petitioner, being unaware of the same, had failed to file his reply. Under these circumstances, the impugned order came to be passed by the respondent. Hence, this petition has been filed.

5. Further, he would submit that the petitioner is ready and willing to pay 25% of the disputed tax amount to the respondent. Hence, he requests this Court

( Uploaded on: 13/10/2026 07:38:59 pm )

WP No. 38024 of 2026

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 counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that if there is any change in the place of business, the same has to be intimated to the Department. However, the petitioner had failed to do so. Under these circumstances, though the notices were issued by way of RPAD, the same was not at all received by the petitioner. Thus, she prays for dismissal of this petition.

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

8. In the case on hand, it is evident that the show cause notice was issued to the petitioner by way of RPAD. However, due to the change in place of business, the aforesaid notice was not at all received by the petitioner and thus, he had failed to file their reply to the show cause notice. Under these circumstances, the impugned order came to be passed by the respondent.

9. As rightly contended by the respondent, the petitioner is supposed to have intimated to the respondent with regard to the change in place of business.

( Uploaded on: 13/10/2026 07:38:59 pm )

WP No. 38024 of 2026

However, due to the inaction of the part of the petitioner, the communication sent by the respondent was not served on him. Further, in this case, the respondent had explored all the possibilities and issued the show cause notice, by way of RPAD, prior to the passing of impugned order. In such case, there is no fault on the part of the respondent and thus, this Court is not inclined to entertain this petition.

10. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. No cost. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is also closed. The liberty is granted to the petitioner to file an appeal before the concerned Appellate Authority, subject to the payment of 10% of the disputed tax amount, over and above the statutory pre-deposit, to the respondent within a period of 4 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. In such case, the Appellate Authority shall consider the said appeal on its own merits and in accordance with law, by providing sufficient opportunity to the petitioner, without pressing for limitation. 05-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No nsa

( Uploaded on: 13/10/2026 07:38:59 pm )

WP No. 38024 of 2026

To The Assistant Commissioner St Valluvarkottam Assessment circle 6th floor, PAPJM Annexe building Greams Road chennai-600 006

( Uploaded on: 13/10/2026 07:38:59 pm )

WP No. 38024 of 2026

KRISHNAN RAMASAMY J. nsa WP No. 38024 of 2026 05-10-2026

( Uploaded on: 13/10/2026 07:38:59 pm )