Tvl.Mayuri Plus vs. The Superintendent Of GST And Central Excise

Facts

The petitioner, Tvl. Mayuri Plus, represented by its Proprietor Arumugam Gomathi, filed a writ petition challenging an assessment order dated 28.08.2025 and a summary order dated 04.09.2025, passed by the Superintendent of GST & Central Excise, Tirunelveli Range. The assessment order, passed under Section 73 of the TNGST Act, 2017, covered the period from 2018-19 to 2022-23. The petitioner contended that the assessment was made ex-parte due to a pre-determined show cause notice, lack of a personal hearing notice, and the issuance of a combined assessment order for five years. The petitioner also stated that all notices were served via the web portal. The respondent is the Superintendent of GST & Central Excise.

Held

The Court held that an opportunity should be granted to the assessee to present their submissions and produce relevant supporting documents. The Court noted that it has been extending such opportunities on equitable grounds, albeit under appropriate conditions. Consequently, the Court allowed the writ petition on the condition that the petitioner deposits 25% of the disputed tax amount within four weeks of receiving the order. Upon such deposit, the impugned orders dated 28.08.2025 and 04.09.2025 would be set aside, and the matter would be remanded back to the respondent. The assessee would then be required to appear before the respondent, submit their reply and supporting documents, and the respondent would consider the matter afresh and pass orders in accordance with the law. The authorities would be permitted to proceed from the stage of personal hearing. Any attachment of bank accounts made pursuant to the impugned order would stand raised. The Court expressly left undecided the merits of the assessment itself, as the matter was remanded for fresh consideration.

Key Issues

1. Whether the assessment order passed ex-parte for the period 2018-19 to 2022-23 is illegal and devoid of merits, considering the petitioner's contentions regarding a pre-determined show cause notice, lack of personal hearing notice, and combined assessment for multiple years. Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the assessment order was passed ex-parte without proper notice and opportunity for a personal hearing. They contended that the show cause notice was pre-determined, and a combined assessment order for five years was issued, which is procedurally flawed. The petitioner also highlighted that while notices were served on the web portal, they did not receive adequate opportunity to present their case. Respondent's Arguments: The respondent, represented by the Senior Standing Counsel, argued that the assessment was made ex-parte because the petitioner did not utilize the opportunities provided. The judgment does not explicitly detail the respondent's arguments beyond this general statement, but it implies that the respondent's position was that the petitioner failed to participate in the proceedings.