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), Madurai. The order was passed under Section 73 of the TNGST Act, 2017, for the financial year 2021-2022. 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 no reply was filed. The petitioner contended that all notices were uploaded only on the online portal and were not communicated to them through other modes, leading to their lack of awareness and inability to file a reply. They also cited technical difficulties in uploading responses.

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 acknowledged the petitioner's explanation for not availing the opportunity, citing the sole reliance on the online portal for notice dissemination and potential technical difficulties. On equitable grounds, the Court decided to allow the petitioner to present their case, subject to certain conditions. 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. Upon deposit, the assessee must appear before the respondent, submit their reply and documents, and the respondent is to consider the matter afresh and pass orders in accordance with the law. Any bank account attachment 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-communication of notices to the petitioner, thereby violating principles of natural justice, as contemplated under Section 73 of the TNGST Act, 2017? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the assessment order was passed ex-parte because they were not properly notified of the proceedings. They contended that all notices were uploaded solely on the online GST portal, and these were not communicated through any other mode. The petitioner claimed their auditor, who dealt with the GST portal, did not inform them of these notices. They also cited technical issues that sometimes prevent dealers from uploading replies. Therefore, they were unaware of the notices and unable to file a reply, leading to an unjust ex-parte order. Respondent's Arguments: The respondent did not explicitly record arguments in the judgment. However, the basis of their action, as stated in the facts, was that the petitioner failed to utilize the opportunities provided and did not file a reply to the notices issued.