Tvl. Bagavathiamman Magalir Sangam vs. The State Tax Officer

Facts

The petitioner, Tvl. Bagavathiamman Magalir Sangam, filed a writ petition challenging an assessment order dated 24.12.2025, passed by the respondent, The State Tax Officer, for the Assessment Year 2022-2023. The impugned order was passed ex parte because the petitioner did not participate in the assessment proceedings. 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 all notices were uploaded only on the online portal and were not effectively communicated to them or their auditor, leading to their unawareness of the proceedings and inability to file a reply. They also cited technical difficulties in uploading responses to the portal.

Held

The Court held that an opportunity should be granted to the assessee to present their submissions and produce supporting documents. Considering the nature of the discrepancies, the explanation offered by the assessee, and the reasons provided for not availing the opportunity, the Court believed that granting an opportunity on equitable grounds was appropriate. The Court allowed the writ petition on the condition that the petitioner deposits 25% of the disputed tax amount within four weeks of receiving the order. Upon such deposit, the impugned order would be set aside, and the matter would be remanded back to the respondent for fresh consideration. The assessee would then be required to appear before the respondent, submit their reply and documents, and the respondent would pass orders in accordance with the law. 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 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 accessing the online portal and filing their reply? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the assessment order was passed without proper communication of notices, as they were only uploaded to the online portal. They claimed their auditor, who handled GST portal matters, did not inform them, and they themselves faced technical issues when trying to upload replies. Consequently, they were unaware of the proceedings and unable to present their case. They relied on the principle that principles of natural justice require proper notice and an opportunity to be heard. Respondent's Arguments: The respondent did not explicitly record any arguments in the judgment regarding their defense against the petitioner's claims of non-communication and technical issues. The judgment states the assessment was made ex parte because the petitioner did not utilize the opportunities provided.