Tvl. Essdee Projects Engineering Private Limited vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)
Original PDF →No AI summary yet for this judgment.
Before: and
This writ petition challenges the impugned order dated 30.07.2025 which is an assessment order passed under Section 74 of the TNGST Act 2017. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Standing Counsel representing the revenue.
By the impugned order, the assessment was made ex parte because the petitioner did not utilise the opportunities provided. The discrepancies and grounds on which the assessment order was issued, the dealer’s explanation on merits, and the reasons for not participating in the assessment proceedings are summarised briefly and presented in a table below: 2 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Discrepancies found/Grounds on which the order is passed Explanation offered by the Assessee on merits Explanation for not availing the opportunity The respondent alleged mismatch
between GSTR-1 and GSTR-9, E- Way
Bill
turnover differences, differential Reverse Charge liability, excess availment of ITC based on GSTR-2A and other reconciliation Tax of discrepancies.
Rs. 23,02,895/- together with interest and penalty was levied under Section 74 of the TNGST Act. The respondent treated return mismatches and portal- generated
data
as conclusive without proper verification of underlying records. The explanations furnished by the petitioner were rejected mainly for want of supporting documents. The impugned order confirmed almost all proposals contained in the Show Cause Notice. The alleged GSTR-1 and GSTR-9 mismatch arose due to inadvertent reporting of certain credit note tax amounts under the IGST column instead of CGST/SGST, while the actual tax liability reported in GSTR-3B
and GSTR-9 remained correct. The E-Way Bill demand was confirmed without furnishing the details of the alleged E-Way Bills despite specific request by the petitioner. The ITC claim was supported by valid tax invoices, purchase registers and books of account and could not be denied merely on the basis of GSTR-2A differences. The petitioner had accepted the minor reverse charge liability and expressed willingness to discharge the same through DRC-03. Invocation of Section 74 and levy of equal penalty is wholly unsustainable. Owing to lack of technical knowledge
of GST compliances, the petitioner had completely relied upon a part-time accountant for portal-related matters. Though a reply was filed, the accountant failed to inform the petitioner
about subsequent notices, hearing dates
and further proceedings. Since all communications
were uploaded only in the GST portal,
the petitioner remained unaware of the developments and could not produce invoices, purchase registers, credit notes and reconciliation statements 3 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Considering the nature of the discrepancies noted, the explanation provided by the assessee and the reason given before this Court for not availing the opportunity, I believe that an opportunity can be granted to the assessee to present their submissions and produce the relevant supporting documents before the respondent assessing officer. This Court has been extending such opportunities on equitable grounds; however, under appropriate conditions. Therefore, an opportunity is granted to the petitioner assessee on the condition of depositing 25% of the disputed tax amount.
In view of this, the writ petition is allowed on the following terms:- i. Within four weeks of receiving the web copy of the order, the petitioner shall deposit 25% of the disputed tax amount with the respondent, without waiting for a certified copy of the order. ii. Upon such deposit, the impugned orders dated 29.12.2025 shall stand set aside, and the matter shall stand remanded back to the file of the respondent. 4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis iii. The assessee shall appear before the respondent without fail and submit their reply and documents in support of their claim, and it is for the respondent to consider the matter afresh and pass orders in accordance with law. iv. Since the impugned order of assessment is set aside, any attachment of the bank account made pursuant to the impugned order shall stand raised. v. No costs. Consequently the connected miscellaneous petition shall stand closed. 24.06.2026 NCC:Yes/No rgm To The Assistant Commissioner (ST), Karur-2 Assessment Circle, Commercial Taxes Building, North Pradhakshnam Road, Karur – 639001. 5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
, J.
rgm and W.M.P(MD)No.12990 of 2026 24.06.2026 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Reproduced from the public record of the Madras High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.