Tvl Rukmani Stores vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer

Facts

The petitioner, Tvl. Rukmani Stores, represented by its Proprietrix, filed a writ petition challenging an assessment order dated 12.12.2025, passed by the Deputy State Tax Officer, Nagercoil-2 Assessment Circle, under Section 73 of the TNGST Act 2017 for the assessment year 2021-22. The assessment order was passed ex parte because the petitioner did not utilize the opportunities provided. The petitioner contended that the disallowance of exemption claimed on outward supply of agri produce (Karuppatti, Palm Jaggery) was erroneous, as these are primary agricultural produce exempt under Notification No. 2/2017-CTR. The petitioner attributed their non-appearance to a bona fide lapse by their part-time accountant, who failed to inform them about the notices and hearing. The impugned order treated the entire reported exempt turnover as taxable.

Held

The Court held that an opportunity should be granted to the assessee to present their submissions and produce relevant supporting documents before the respondent assessing officer. The Court noted that the commodity in question, Karuppatti and Palm Jaggery, is exempted from GST. Therefore, an opportunity was granted to the petitioner without any condition. The impugned order dated 12.12.2025 was set aside and the matter was remanded back to the respondent. The assessee was directed to appear before the respondent, submit their reply and supporting documents, and the respondent was 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 found the petitioner's explanation for non-appearance to be a bona fide lapse and considered the nature of the discrepancies and the explanation provided.

Key Issues

1. Whether the ex parte assessment order dated 12.12.2025, passed under Section 73 of the TNGST Act 2017, is liable to be quashed as cryptic, nonspeaking, illegal, arbitrary, and wholly without jurisdiction? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the assessment order was passed without proper verification of invoices, stock records, or the nature of goods, making the denial of exemption unsustainable. They contended that Karuppatti and Palm Jaggery are primary agricultural produce exempt under Notification No. 2/2017-CTR, and tax was duly discharged on other taxable goods. The petitioner further argued that their non-appearance was due to a bona fide lapse by their part-time accountant, and an opportunity should be granted to present their submissions and documents. Respondent's arguments: The respondent's counsel did not present specific arguments against the petitioner's claims regarding the merits of the exemption or the reason for non-appearance. The judgment notes that the assessment was made ex parte because the petitioner did not utilize the opportunities provided.