Tvl. Bagavathiamman Magalir Sangam vs. The State Tax Officer

Facts

The petitioner, Tvl. Bagavathiamman Magalir Sangam, challenged an assessment order dated 24.12.2025, passed by the State Tax Officer, Vedasandur Assessment Circle, for the Assessment Year 2020-2021. The assessment order was made ex parte because the petitioner did not participate in the proceedings. The petitioner contended that they were unaware of the notices issued by the respondent, as all communications were uploaded only to the online GST portal. Their auditor, who usually handles portal-related matters, did not inform them, and they faced technical difficulties in uploading replies. The respondent levied tax, interest, and penalty through the impugned order.

Held

The Court held that an opportunity should be granted to the assessee to present their submissions and produce relevant documents before the assessing officer. The Court reasoned that this was being extended on equitable grounds, subject to certain conditions. The impugned order dated 24.12.2025 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 petitioner must appear before the respondent, submit their reply and supporting 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 argued by the petitioner? The petitioner argued that notices were only uploaded to the online portal, which they had difficulty accessing due to technical issues and lack of timely communication from their auditor. They contended that this prevented them from filing a reply and presenting their case, leading to an unjust ex parte order. The respondent, represented by the Government Standing Counsel, did not record any specific arguments in the judgment regarding the communication of notices or the validity of the ex parte assessment.