Gp Cell Point vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer-1
Original PDF →No AI summary yet for this judgment.
Before: and
This writ petition challenges the impugned order dated 18.12.2025, which is an assessment order passed under Section 73 of the CGST Act 2017. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate representing the revenue.
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 2 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis table below: Discrepancies found/Grounds
on which the order is passed Explanation offered by the Assessee on merits Explanation for not availing the opportunity Excess claim of ITC availed w.r.t GSTR-2A alleged
excess availment of ITC amounting
to Rs. 1,44,470/- (SGST Rs.72,235/- and CGST Rs.72,235/-) on the ground of mismatch between GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A for AY 2021-22. The respondent treated the alleged difference as ineligible ITC and levied tax, interest and penalty. There is absolutely no mismatch between GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A. The ITC claimed is supported by genuine purchase invoices and duly accounted transactions. The petitioner possesses return summaries
and records establishing the correctness of the ITC availed. The demand has been raised without proper reconciliation or verification of records. All notices
and communications were uploaded only on the GST portal. The petitioner, being unfamiliar with portal dependent on a part-operations, was entirely time accountant for GST compliance.
The said accountant was on medical leave during the relevant period and failed to inform the petitioner
about
the proceedings. Consequently, the petitioner could not submit a detailed reply or effectively participate in the adjudication process.
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; 3 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis however, under appropriate conditions. Therefore, an opportunity is granted to the petitioner assessee on the condition of depositing 25% of the disputed tax amount.
In view of this, the writ petition is allowed on the following terms:- i. Within four weeks of receiving the web copy of the order, the petitioner shall deposit 25% of the disputed tax amount with the respondent, without waiting for a certified copy of the order. ii. Upon such deposit, the impugned order dated 24.10.2025 shall stand set aside, and the matter shall stand remanded back to the file of the respondent. iii. The assessee shall appear before the respondent without fail and submit their reply and documents in support of their claim, and it is for the respondent to consider the matter afresh and pass orders in accordance with law. iv. Since the impugned order of assessment is set aside, any attachment of the bank account made pursuant to the impugned order shall stand raised. 4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis v. No costs. Consequently the connected miscellaneous petition shall stand closed. 02.06.2026 Neutral Citation: No rgm To The Deputy State Tax Officer-1, Kulithalai Assessment Circle, Commercial Taxes Buildings, Karur. 5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
, J.
rgm and W.M.P(MD)No.10955 of 2026 02.06.2026 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Reproduced from the public record of the Madras High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.