Tvl Vinayaga Traders vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer- 2 /The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer

Facts

The petitioner, Tvl. Vinayaga Traders, represented by its Proprietor Palanichamy Rajeshperumal, filed a writ petition before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court. The petition challenged an assessment order dated 29.12.2025, passed by the Deputy State Tax Officer-2/Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Dindigul Town Assessment Circle. The assessment order, passed under Section 73 of the TNGST Act, 2017, was made ex-parte. The petitioner contended that the notices and orders were served on the web portal, but they were not aware of the show cause notice on the web portal. The petitioner sought to quash the impugned order and requested the respondent to redo the assessment proceedings for the year 2021-22.

Held

The Court held that an opportunity should be granted to the assessee to present their submissions and produce relevant supporting documents before the respondent assessing officer. The Court noted that it has been extending such opportunities on equitable grounds, but under appropriate conditions. Therefore, an opportunity was granted to the petitioner on the condition of depositing 25% of the disputed tax amount. The impugned order dated 29.12.2025 was set aside, and the matter was remanded back to the respondent for fresh consideration. The petitioner was directed to appear before the respondent, submit their reply and documents, and the respondent was to consider the matter afresh and pass orders in accordance with law. Any attachment of the bank account made pursuant to the impugned order was also ordered to be raised. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.

Key Issues

1. Whether the ex-parte assessment order passed under Section 73 of the TNGST Act, 2017, is arbitrary, illegal, and a gross violation of the principles of natural justice, considering the petitioner's claim of non-GST supply and alleged improper service of notice under Section 169 of the GST Act? (Mixed question of law and fact) Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the assessment order was ex-facie arbitrary and illegal, constituting a gross violation. They contended that the supply in question was an exempted non-GST supply. Furthermore, they asserted that the service of notice under Section 169 of the GST Act was not properly effected, as they were not notified of the show cause notice on the web portal, despite all notices and orders being served there. They claimed the order was passed ex-parte without proper intimation. Respondent's arguments: The respondent did not record any specific arguments in the judgment. However, the judgment indicates that the assessment was made ex-parte because the petitioner did not utilize the opportunities provided.