M/S.Amk Athencottasan Muthamizh Kazhagam Man Power Services vs. The State Tax Officer

This writ petition challenges the impugned order dated 16.02.2025 which is an assessment order passed under Section 73 of the GST Act 2017. 2.I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader representing the revenue. 3.By the impugned order, the assessment was made ex-parte because the petitioner did not utilise the opportunities provided. The discrepancies and grounds on which the assessment order was issued, the dealer's explanation on merits, and the reasons for not participating in the assessment proceedings are summarised briefly and presented in a table below: Discrepancies found/grounds on which the order is passed Explanation offered by the Assessee on merits Explanation

for not availing the opportunity 2/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis I) Short payment of GST when

compared

to GSTR-07 and 3B ii)Excess availment of credit when compared to GSTR 2A iii)Non reversal of credit on exempted supplies. iv)interest on late payment of GST v)late fee of delayed filing of GSTR-1 Payment credited in the subsequent year for the services provided in the previous year No excess availment of ITC as alleged by the assessing authority. The discrepancy is not correct because the credit was reversed while filing monthly returns. In the absence of any late payment, the question of levy of interest and late fee does not arise to the facts of this case The part time accountant failed to notice the fact of issuing of the order The respondent had only chosen to upload all the communication, summons, notices, and orders only on the web portal. Because of the above reasons, the petitioner was not able to access the Web portal which resulted in the issuance of Ex parte impugned order. 4.Considering the nature of the discrepancies noted, the explanation provided by the assessee and the reason given before this Court for not availing the opportunity, I believe that an opportunity can be granted to the assessee to present their submissions and produce the relevant supporting documents before the respondent assessing officer. This Court has been extending such opportunities on equitable grounds; however under appropriate conditions. Therefore, an opportunity is granted to the petitioner assessee on the condition of depositing 25% of the disputed tax amount. 3/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis