Tvl.Ss Printers vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer (St) - 1
Original PDF →No AI summary yet for this judgment.
Before: and
This writ petition challenges the impugned order dated 29.04.2024, which is an assessment order passed under Section 73 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 Reconciliation of GSTR-01
with GSTR-09 The petitioner has reported the turnover of Rs.63,53,123 in GSTR-01 but he has also reported the turnover of Rs.60,92,487/- in GSTR-09 which is difference of Rs. 2,60,636/- which is nothing but the sales returns. The above sales return also available in his GSTR-3B but the respondent has not verified and order passed. The cause show notice and impugned order have uploaded in the GST Portal only but the reply not filed due to the accountant never informed that the above. Hence, the exparte order passed Excess ITC claimed on account of non- reconciliation
of information The difference of ITC has been pointed out by the respondent is nothing but which is eligible ITC in accordance with law. the petitioner is ready to file reply along with documents before the respondent. -do-
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. 3 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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 10.09.2025 shall stand set aside, and the matter shall stand remanded back to the file of the respondent. 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. 19.06.2026 Neutral Citation: No rgm 4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis To The Deputy State Tax Officer (ST) – 1, Sivakasi-III Assessment Circle, Commercial Taxes Buildings, Sivakasi, Virudhunagar District. 5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
, J.
rgm and W.M.P(MD)No.12588 of 2026 19.06.2026 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.