Tvl. Kg Industries vs. The State Tax Officer

This writ petition challenges the impugned order dated 24.12.2025 which is an assessment order passed under Section 73 of the GST Act 2017. 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- parte because the petitioner did not utilise the opportunities 2 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 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 Reconciliation of GSTR-01 with GSTR-3B Actually, there is no difference. The respondent has not properly verified the sales

return

already available in the portal. Now I am ready to file reply along with records. The show cause notice and the impugned order have uploaded in the GST Portal only, the reply not filed due to the accountant never informed that the above. Excess claim of ITC availed w.r.t GSTR-2A This issue already settled as per

Circular

No. 193/15/2022-GST

dated 27.12.2022. The petitioner is ready to file reply along with connected records as per the above circular. -do- ITC to be reversed on non- business transaction & exempted goods The petitioner has not claimed any ITC on inward supply of goods which is used for exempted outward supply of goods -do- Claim of intelligence ITC under Section 17(5) The petitioner has not any claim of ITC on non- relations

of business transactions. The entire claim of ITC is elligible as per Section 16 of the Act. -do- 3 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis GSTR- 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 perid 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 25% of the disputed tax amount. 4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis