Tvl.Tetra Agencies Private Limited vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer - 2 /

Held

The Court held that the impugned assessment order dated 11.12.2025 is quashed. The reasoning was based on the petitioner's marginal delay in filing the appeal and the fact that they had already made a pre-deposit of 10% of the disputed tax against the impugned order. The Court found it appropriate to remit the case back to the respondent for a fresh assessment. The petitioner is directed to file a proper reply to the Show Cause Notice dated 09.08.2025, along with supporting documents, within thirty days from the receipt of the order. The impugned order will be treated as an addendum to the Show Cause Notice. If the petitioner complies, the respondent shall pass a fresh order on merits within three months. The respondent is also directed to provide due notice to the petitioner before passing any order. The Court expressly left undecided the merits of the original assessment.

Facts

The petitioner, Tvl.Tetra Agencies Private Limited, challenged an assessment order dated 11.12.2025, passed by the Deputy State Tax Officer-2, Tuticorin. This order confirmed a proposal in a Show Cause Notice (DRC-01) dated 09.08.2025 for the tax period 2021-2022, issued due to the petitioner's failure to reply. The petitioner attempted to file an appeal on 08.04.2026, making a pre-deposit of 10% of the disputed tax. However, they faced technical difficulties uploading the appeal (Form GST APL-01), which was eventually uploaded on 15.04.2026. The appeal was subsequently rejected on 02.06.2026. The petitioner sought to quash the assessment order and requested a redo of the assessment proceedings.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned assessment order dated 11.12.2025, passed by the respondent, is liable to be quashed as illegal and devoid of merits, considering the petitioner's attempt to file an appeal and the subsequent rejection thereof? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that they had attempted to file an appeal within a reasonable time and had complied with the pre-deposit requirement of 10% of the disputed tax. They faced technical issues in uploading the appeal, which were later rectified. The rejection of the appeal, despite these circumstances and the pre-deposit, was unjust. They argued that the assessment order should be quashed and the matter remitted for a fresh assessment. Respondent's arguments: The respondent, through the Government Advocate (Taxes), took notice of the writ petition. No specific arguments were recorded in the judgment for the respondent regarding the merits of the assessment or the appeal rejection.