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 2024-2025. The assessment order was issued under Section 73 of the TNGST Act, 2017. The respondent alleged that the petitioner was conducting business as an unregistered person despite being liable for registration and failed to file a reply. The petitioner contended that notices were only uploaded to the online portal and not communicated through other means, leading to their lack of awareness and inability to respond. The petitioner also cited technical difficulties in uploading replies to the portal.

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. In this case, the Court decided to grant an opportunity to the petitioner on the condition of depositing 25% of the disputed tax amount. The impugned order dated 24.11.2025 was set aside, and the matter was remanded back to the respondent for fresh consideration. The petitioner was directed to appear before the respondent, submit their reply and supporting documents, and the respondent was to pass orders in accordance with law. 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 under Section 73 of the TNGST Act, 2017, is liable to be quashed on the grounds of non-communication of notices to the petitioner? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the notices issued by the respondent, including DRC-01 and ASMT notice, were only uploaded to the online GST portal. They contended that their auditor, who handles portal matters, did not inform them of these notices, and they themselves were unaware of them. The petitioner also highlighted technical issues that sometimes prevent dealers from uploading replies to the portal. Consequently, they were unable to file a reply and the respondent passed the impugned order without considering their situation. Respondent's Arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondent. However, the impugned order was passed ex-parte due to the petitioner not utilising the opportunities provided.