Tvl A. Sorimuthu vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)

This writ petition challenges the impugned order dated 26.12.2025 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 provided. The discrepancies and grounds on which the assessment order was issued, the dealer's explanation on merits, 2 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 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 The respondent alleged suppression of turnover based on mismatch between from GSTR-3B and Form GSTR-7 for AY 2021-22. An amount of Rs.58,77,900/- reflected in GSTR-7 for March 2022 was treated as turnover allegedly received by the petitioner. Based on the said difference, tax of Rs.10,58,022/- together with interest and penalty was levied under Section 73 of the TNGST Act. The petitioner categorically denies having received the alleged amount of Rs. 58,77,900/- reflected in Form GSTR-7. Mere reporting of an amount by a deductor in GSTR-7 cannot automatically

establish receipt of consideration without

independent verification. The respondent failed to verify bank statements,

books

of accounts, work orders, running bills or payment records before confirming the demand. No enquiry was conducted

with the concerned

Government Department to ascertain the correctness of the GSTR-& entry.

The impugned demand is therefore, based on unverified third-party information,

factual assumptions and complete non-application of mind. The entire proceedings were uploaded only in the GST portal and no effective physical

communication was served on the petitioner. Being a small civil works contractor with limited GST knowledge the petitioner had entrusted

GST compliance and portal monitoring to a part-time accountant. The accountant failed to inform the petitioner about the show cause notice, hearing notices and assessment proceedings. Consequently, the petitioner remained unaware of the proceedings and could not produce bank statements, work orders and supporting records. The impugned assessment order was therefore passed ex-parte without

affording

an effective opportunity of hearing. 4.Considering the nature of the discrepancies noted, the explanation provided by the assessee and the reason given 3 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 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. 5.In view thereof, the Writ Petition is allowed on the following terms: (i)Within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of 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 26.12.2025 4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 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 raised. (v)No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 18.06.2026 NCC:Yes/No Ns 5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis To The Assistant Commissioner (St), Palayamkottai Assessment Circle, Commercial Taxes Buildings, Palayamkottai. D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J. Ns 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis and W.M.P(MD)No.12479 of 2026 18.06.2026 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis