Tvl Ksr Traders vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)
Original PDF →No AI summary yet for this judgment.
Before: and
This writ petition challenges the impugned order dated 08.01.2026 which is an assessment order passed under Section 76 of the TNGST Act, 2017. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Standing Counsel for the respondent.
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: 2/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Discrepancies found/Grounds on which the assessment is passed Explanation offered by the Assessee on merits Explanation for not availing the opportunity i) Tax collected amount not paid to Government. ii) Penalty under Section 76 of the GST Act and interest
under Section 50 the GST Act As far as the discrepancy pointed out by the respondent, whatever work she had executed was properly reported and tax paid. Normally, the work executed to government department would be reported in those years but the government departments in most of the cases only on release of their funds report the transactions in their form GSTR 07 and pay the TDS tax @ 2%. That is the reason for the alleged variation. In the absence of any fraud or wilful
misstatement
the question of levy of interest under Section 50 and penalty under Section 76 of the GST Act does not arise to the facts of this case The part time accountant failed to notice the fact of issuing of the proceedings. The respondent had also sent the same through RPAD but due to pressure of work the part time accountant had failed to consult and file an effective reply. Because of the above reason, the respondent had issued the ex parte impugned order.
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 3/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 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.
In view thereof, this Writ Petition is allowed on the following terms: (i) Within four weeks from the date of receipt of a 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 08.01.2026 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; 4/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis (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 is closed. 12.06.2026 sji NCC: Yes/No To The Assistant Commissioner (ST), Thirumangalam Assessment Circle, Commercial Tax Buildings, Thirumangalam. 5/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J. sji
2026 6/6 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.