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 passed under Section 73 of the TNGST Act, 2017, for the financial year 2023-2024. The respondent alleged that the petitioner was liable to be registered but failed to do so and did not file any reply to the notices issued. The petitioner contended that notices were only uploaded on the online portal and were not communicated through other modes, leading to their lack of awareness and inability to file a reply. The petitioner also cited technical difficulties in uploading replies. The respondent passed the order ex-parte without considering the petitioner's explanation.

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 noted that it has been extending such opportunities on equitable grounds, subject to appropriate conditions. Therefore, an opportunity was granted 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. The petitioner was directed to appear before the respondent and submit their reply and documents. The respondent was directed 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. The Court expressly left no issue undecided.

Key Issues

1. Whether the ex-parte assessment order passed by the respondent under Section 73 of the TNGST Act, 2017, is liable to be quashed on the grounds of non-communication of notices and technical difficulties faced by the petitioner in responding to them? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the notices issued by the respondent were only uploaded on the online portal and were not communicated through any other mode. Their auditor, who dealt with the GST portal, did not inform them of these notices. Consequently, the petitioner was unaware of the notices and could not file a reply. They also raised concerns about technical issues that sometimes prevent dealers from uploading replies on the portal. The petitioner contended that the respondent passed the impugned order without considering these circumstances. Respondent's Arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondent. It only states that the assessment was made ex-parte because the petitioner did not utilize the opportunities provided.