Tvl.Snow Marys Timber Traders vs. The Deputy Commissioner (CT)

This writ petition challenges the impugned orders dated 23.10.2025 and 13.03.2026 which is an assessment order passed under Section 73 of the GST Act 2017 and appeal rejection order under Section 107 of the Act. 2.I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader representing the revenue. 3.By the impugned order, the assessment was made ex- 2 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 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: Discrepancies found/grounds on which the order is passed Explanation offered by the Assessee on merits Explanation for not availing the opportunity Excess claim of ITC in GSTR-3B W.R.T GST-9 There is a human error crepted while uploading the ITC break up in Table 61 of GSTR-9, due to which there is no revenue loss to the department and moreover the claim of ITC is supported

by valid documents and the same can be easily verified from the GSTN common portal. Hence, the question of utlizing common input tax credit does not arise at all by the respondent itself, but the respondent has utterly failed to do so. The show cause notice and impugned order have uploaded in the GST portal only hence no knowledge of the petitioner due to reply not filed. The accountant has also intimated the same. Therefore, the ex-parte assessment order passed under Section 73 of the Act. 3 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis GSTR-1 late fee The late fee levied on the belated filing of GSTR-1 returns but during the time, the Covid period, the Government has extended the period for filing of returns as per notification. But the respondent has not considered and confirmed the proposal. -do- 4.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 15% of the disputed tax amount. The petitioner has also paid 10% of the disputed tax amount during the time of filing the appeal. 4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis