Vinothkumar vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer / Deputy Commercial Tax Officer

Facts

The petitioner, Vinothkumar, filed a writ petition challenging an ex-parte assessment order dated 26.12.2025, passed by the Deputy State Tax Officer under Section 73 of the TNGST/CGST Act, 2017. The order confirmed demands totaling Rs. 5,41,760, comprising tax of Rs. 2,82,262, interest of Rs. 1,95,572, penalty of Rs. 28,266, and late fee of Rs. 35,700. The petitioner contended that they were unaware of the mismatch because notices were only uploaded to the portal and not physically communicated. The respondent argued that the petitioner did not appear for personal hearings or file a reply due to a lack of notice, despite the department issuing reminders via postal service. The petitioner stated that 100% of the disputed tax amount had already been remitted.

Held

The Court held that an opportunity should be granted to the assessee to present their submissions and produce relevant supporting documents before the respondent assessing officer. The Court noted that it has been extending such opportunities on equitable grounds, albeit under appropriate conditions. Considering that 100% of the disputed tax amount had already been remitted by the petitioner, no additional condition was imposed. The impugned order dated 26.12.2025 was set aside, and the matter was remanded back to the respondent. The assessee was directed to appear before the respondent, submit their reply and supporting documents, and the respondent was to consider the matter afresh and 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/CGST Act, 2017, is liable to be quashed on the grounds of lack of proper notice to the petitioner? (Question of law and fact) Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that they were not aware of the discrepancies leading to the assessment because the notices were uploaded to the GST portal, and they did not receive physical communication. This lack of proper notice prevented them from availing the opportunities provided by the department. Respondent's Arguments: The respondent contended that the petitioner did not appear for personal hearings or file a reply due to a lack of notice, despite the department issuing reminders via postal service. This implies that the department followed its established procedure for communication.