Tvl. Jeyalakshmi vs. The State Tax Officer (Intelligence)

Facts

The petitioner, Tvl. Jeyalakshmi, filed a writ petition challenging an assessment order dated 24.11.2025, passed by the respondent, The State Tax Officer (Intelligence). The order was issued under Section 73 of the TNGST Act, 2017, for the financial year 2022-2023. The assessment was made ex-parte because the petitioner allegedly did not utilize the opportunities provided. The respondent's order alleged that the petitioner conducted business as an unregistered person despite being liable for registration, and no reply was filed. The petitioner contended that notices were only uploaded to the online portal and not communicated through other modes, leading to their lack of awareness and inability to file a reply. Technical issues also reportedly hindered the uploading of replies.

Held

The Court held that an opportunity should be granted to the assessee to present their submissions and produce supporting documents before the respondent assessing officer. The Court reasoned that the discrepancies noted, the explanation provided by the assessee, and the reasons given for not availing the opportunity warranted such a chance. The Court has been extending such opportunities on equitable grounds, subject to appropriate conditions. Therefore, the Court allowed the writ petition on the condition that the petitioner deposits 25% of the disputed tax amount within four weeks. Upon deposit, the impugned order would be set aside, and the matter remanded back to the respondent for fresh consideration. The petitioner would then need to appear and submit their reply and documents. Any bank account attachment made pursuant to the impugned order would also 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, as stipulated under Section 73 of the TNGST Act, 2017? The petitioner argued that all notices, including DRC-01 and ASMT notices, were uploaded solely to the online portal and were not communicated through any other mode. Consequently, the petitioner, and even their auditor, were unaware of these notices, preventing them from filing a reply. The petitioner also cited technical difficulties in uploading replies to the portal. The respondent, The State Tax Officer (Intelligence), did not present any arguments in the judgment.