Tvl J M Enterprises vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer 1
Original PDF →No AI summary yet for this judgment.
Before: and
This writ petition challenges the impugned order dated 05.12.2025, 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 Difference
between GSTR-3B vs GSTR-2A The petitioner has claimed only the eligible Input Tax Credit (ITC) on the inward supply effected from the registered dealers and also duly reported outward supply through his returns and also paid corresponding tax due the to the department then and there through returns. Thus, what have reported through GSTR-1 statement and paid through GSTR-3B return is correct. However, there is no difference between GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A. The Circular No. 193/5/2023-GST dated 17-07-2023 is also in his favour. Once the considered the above circular, the above issues shall be settled as per the provisions of the Act. Hence, the one more opportunity may be granted to file reply along with connected records as per the above circular. The show cause notice and impugned assessment
order uploaded in the GST Portal due to without knowledge of the petitioner.
The Accountant
never informed in the above. 3 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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. Since, it is stated that the petitioner has already paid 10% of the disputed tax amount, the petitioner shall pay a further 15% of the disputed tax amount.
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 15% 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 05.12.2025 shall stand set aside, and the matter shall stand remanded back to the file of the respondent. 4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 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 petitions are closed. 11.06.2026 Index: Yes Speaking Order: Yes Neutral Citation: No rgm 5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
, J.
rgm To 1. The Deputy State Tax Officer 1, Ambasamudram Assessment Circle, Tirunelveli District.
The Deputy Commissioner (ST), (GST Appeal), Tirunelveli.
and W.M.P(MD)Nos.11847 and 11848 of 2026 11.06.2026 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.