Tvl Jeyalakshmi vs. The State Tax Officer (Intelligence)

Facts

The petitioner, Tvl. Jeyalakshmi, filed a writ petition challenging an ex-parte assessment order dated 24.11.2025, passed by the respondent, The State Tax Officer (Intelligence), for the financial year 2025-2026. The impugned order was issued under Section 73 of the TNGST Act, 2017. The assessment was made ex-parte because the petitioner allegedly did not utilize the opportunities provided. The respondent's order alleged that the petitioner was conducting business as an unregistered person despite being liable for registration and had not filed a reply to notices. The petitioner contended that notices were uploaded only on the online portal and were not communicated through other modes, leading to their lack of awareness and inability to file a reply. Technical issues also reportedly hindered their ability to upload responses.

Held

The Court held that an opportunity should be granted to the assessee to present their submissions and produce relevant documents before the respondent assessing officer. The Court noted that it has been extending such opportunities on equitable grounds, subject to appropriate conditions. Therefore, the Court decided to grant an opportunity to the petitioner on the condition of depositing 25% of the disputed tax amount. The reasoning was based on the nature of the discrepancies, the explanation provided by the assessee, and the reasons given for not availing the opportunity. The Court's decision to allow the writ petition on terms is the ratio decidendi. The impugned order dated 24.11.2025 was set aside, and the matter was remanded back to the respondent. The petitioner was directed to deposit 25% of the disputed tax amount within four weeks and appear before the respondent to submit their reply and documents. Any attachment of the bank account made pursuant to the impugned order was also ordered to be raised.

Key Issues

1. Whether the ex-parte assessment order passed by the respondent is liable to be quashed on the grounds of non-receipt of proper notice and technical difficulties in accessing the online portal, as contemplated under Section 73 of the TNGST Act, 2017? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that all notices were uploaded solely on the online portal and were not communicated through any other mode. They contended that their auditor, who managed the GST portal, did not inform them of these notices. Furthermore, they cited instances of technical issues preventing dealers from uploading replies. Consequently, the petitioner claimed to be unaware of the notices and unable to file a reply, leading to an unjust ex-parte order. The petitioner relied on the principle of natural justice and the need for effective communication of notices. Respondent's arguments: The respondent did not record any specific arguments in the judgment regarding the petitioner's contentions. However, the basis of their action was the petitioner's alleged failure to utilize provided opportunities and respond to notices.