Tvl. Gokulam Medicals vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer

Facts

The petitioner, Tvl. Gokulam Medicals, represented by its Proprietor, challenged two orders: an assessment order dated 03.02.2026 passed by the Deputy State Tax Officer (1st respondent) under Section 73 of the TNGST Act, 2017, and a consequential order dated 12.06.2026 passed by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT) (2nd respondent). The petitioner argued that these orders were cryptic, non-speaking, illegal, arbitrary, and without jurisdiction. The assessment order was passed after the petitioner submitted replies to a show cause notice. The original assessment order rejected the petitioner's submissions solely on the ground that a supplier's letter enclosed as supporting evidence did not bear the supplier's signature. The appeal filed by the petitioner was rejected by the appellate authority due to a delay of 1 month and 2 days.

Held

The Court held that the original assessment order dated 03.02.2026 was flawed because the petitioner's submissions were rejected solely on a technical ground (lack of supplier's signature on a document) without considering their merits. The Court noted that this issue was not properly raised with the taxpayer during a personal hearing, and the submissions were neither considered nor disposed of on their merits. Consequently, the Court found that the petitioner was entitled to one more opportunity. Regarding the appellate order, while acknowledging that the appeal was filed beyond the condonable period and thus liable to be rejected, the Court considered the flawed nature of the original assessment order. The Court decided to set aside both the assessment order and the appellate order on equitable grounds, remanding the matter back to the respondent for fresh consideration. The Court directed the assessee to appear before the respondent, submit their reply and duly signed documents, and for the respondent to consider the matter afresh and pass orders in accordance with law. The Court also ordered the raising of any bank account attachment made pursuant to the impugned order. No additional conditions were imposed as a part of the demand had already been realized.

Key Issues

1. Whether the assessment order dated 03.02.2026, which rejected the petitioner's submissions solely on the technical ground of a missing supplier signature on an enclosed document, without considering the merits of the submissions and without a proper personal hearing, is sustainable in law, particularly in light of Section 75(4) of the TNGST Act, 2017? 2. Whether the appellate order dated 12.06.2026, which rejected the petitioner's appeal due to a delay, failed to consider the equities and the circumstances leading to the delay, especially when the original assessment order was allegedly flawed? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner contended that the assessment order was cryptic, non-speaking, illegal, arbitrary, and passed without jurisdiction. They argued that their submissions were not considered on merits but were rejected on a technicality. They also sought an opportunity for a personal hearing as contemplated under Section 75(4) of the TNGST Act, 2017. The petitioner sought to quash both orders and direct the 2nd respondent to pass a fresh order after affording a personal hearing. Revenue's Arguments: The Government Standing Counsel for the respondents argued that the appeal was filed beyond the condonable period and was therefore liable to be rejected, and the appellate authority had rightly rejected it.