Tvl. Amuthan Traders vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer - 1
Original PDF →No AI summary yet for this judgment.
Before: and
This writ petition challenges the impugned order dated 13.10.2025 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
excess availment of Input Credit
of Rs.1,07,750/- based on Tax mismatch between GSTR-3B
and GSTR-2A for AY 2021-22. The alleged excess ITC comprised SGST of Rs.52,585/-, CGST of Rs.52,585/- and IGST of Rs. 2,580/-. Based solely on portal-generated data, the respondent proposed reversal of ITC together with interest, penalty and late fee. The petitioner did not file objections as the notices were uploaded only in the GST
portal. Consequently,
the respondent passed an ex
parte
order confirming
tax, interest, penalty and late fee. The very foundation of the assessment is factually incorrect. On verification, the petitioner's GSTR-2B reflected eligible ITC of Rs.8,93,104.38, whereas the actual ITC availed in GSTR-3B
was only Rs.7,85,959.70, establishing that the petitioner had availed substantially lesser credit than what was available. The respondent mechanically relied on GSTR-2A without verifying GSTR-2B,
purchase invoices, books of account and electronic credit ledger. No supplier-wise
or invoice-wise verification was undertaken before concluding that excess ITC had been availed. The entire proceedings were uploaded only in the GST portal and no effective physical
communication served on petitioner. Being was the a small trader unfamiliar with GST portal operations, the petitioner had entrusted GST compliances and portal monitoring to a part-time accountant. The accountant failed to inform the petitioner about the notices, personal hearing opportunities and assessment proceedings. Consequently, the petitioner remained unaware of the proceedings and could not produce
GSTR-2B statements,
invoices, purchase registers and reconciliation records. 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 order dated 13.10.2025 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 5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
, J.
rgm To The Deputy State Tax Officer – 1, Kulithalai Assessment Circle, Commercial Taxes Buildings, Kulithalai, Karur District.
and W.M.P(MD)No.13053 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.