M/S. Rajeswari Vilas vs. The Deputy Commissioner Tax Officer / State Tax Officer

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Rajeswari Vilas, filed a writ petition challenging an order in Form GST DRC-07 dated 16.12.2025, passed by the Deputy Commissioner Tax Officer/State Tax Officer, Pudukkottai. This order was passed under Section 73 of the TNGST Act, 2017, for the assessment year 2021-2022. The petitioner contended that they deal with goods entirely exempted from tax, but the impugned order was issued due to their failure to upload documents proving exemption. The petitioner attributed this failure to personal and business circumstances, leading to an ex-parte order. The petition also sought to quash consequential recovery proceedings, including the attachment of the petitioner's savings bank account with UCO Bank, Pudukkottai.

Held

The Court held that in cases where a petitioner missed the opportunity to respond to a show cause notice due to personal and business circumstances, and the goods are claimed to be entirely exempted from tax, it is appropriate to grant a fresh opportunity to appear before the authority and produce supporting documents. The Court set aside the impugned order dated 16.12.2025 and remanded the matter back to the respondent authority for reconsideration. The petitioner was directed to appear before the authority and produce documents in support of their claim for exemption, which would then be considered in accordance with law. The Court explicitly stated that it was not imposing the usual condition of depositing 25% of the disputed amount, given the special and peculiar circumstances and the petitioner's claim of exemption. The petitioner was also directed to cooperate for the expeditious determination of the assessment proceedings.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Court should grant the petitioner a fresh opportunity to present their case and supporting documents, considering their claim of dealing with exempted goods and their failure to respond to the show cause notice due to personal and business circumstances. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the impugned order was passed ex-parte because they missed the opportunity to reply to the show cause notice and upload documents due to personal and business circumstances. They asserted that their goods are entirely exempted from tax and sought a fresh opportunity to present their case and supporting documents to the authority. Revenue's arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the Revenue (1st Respondent).