Tvl. Ideal Marketing 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 passed by the respondent in GSTIN : 33AHYPA0302L1ZK/2021-22, dated 31.10.2025, which is an assessment order passed under Section 73 of the TNGST Act, 2017. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondent.
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 2/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Short Payment of tax reported in GSTR-09: Assessee paid tax, but not paid interest. The assessee has paid tax along with interest and attached payment proof bearing challan No.25063300706912, dated 30.06.2025, but the same was not considered properly by the respondent. No physical notice for personal hearing is served and the personal hearing notice/order is said to be uploaded only in the GSTN common portal and thus due to no knowledge about the issuance of personal hearing by the proper officer, not able to appear in person and to represent their case. 2.Reconciliation
of GSTR-01
and GSTR-09: There is a difference between GSTR-01 and GSTR-09 to a tune of Rs.27,883/- each under SGST and CGST There exists no such difference as alleged by the respondent and the relevant reconciliation filed by the assessee along with tax and interest was not properly considered by the respondent and respondent has simply rejected the reply in a non-speaking manner as 'Not satisfactory'. No physical notice for personal hearing is served and the personal hearing notice/order is said to be uploaded only in the GSTN common portal and thus due to no knowledge about the issuance of personal hearing notice by the proper officer, not able to appear in person and to represent their case. 3.Excess ITC claim under Reverse Charge: There is a difference in tax
due
of Rs.28,877/- each under SGST and CGST in tax payment under Reverse Charge Mechanism. The assessee has not availed any excess ITC under RCM and due to human error in entering the datas in GSTR-9, the alleged difference exists, but the assesee has not availed any excess ITC as alleged, which can be evidenced from GSTR-3B summary itself. No physical notice for personal hearing is served and the personal hearing notice/order is said to be uploaded only in the GSTN Common Portal and thus due to no knowledge about the issuance of personal hearing notice by the Proper Officer, not able to appear in person and to represent their case. 3/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
ITC to be reversed on non-business transactions
and exempt supplies: The assessee availed common Input Tax Credit, but not reversed the ITC proportionate to non-business transactions
and exempt supplies. Assessee is trader and has not availed any common Input Tax Credit as alleged by the respondent and hence the question of reversing the proportionate ITC for taxable and exempted supplies does not arise at all. Reply filed by the assessee was simply rejected by the respondent in a non-speaking manner by simply alleging it as 'Not satisfactory' and that too without
providing
an opportunity of personal hearing to the assessee. No physical notice for personal hearing is served and the personal hearing notice/order is said to be uploaded only in the GSTN Common Portal and thus due to no knowledge about the issuance of personal hearing notice by the Proper Officer, not able to appear in person and to represent their case. 5.Claim of Ineligible ITC: Assessee paid tax, but not paid interest. Assessee paid tax, along with interest through DRC-0- AD330625121275C, but the same was not properly considered by the respondent. No physical notice for personal hearing is served and the personal hearing notice/order is said to be uploaded only in the GSTN Common Portal and thus due to no knowledge about the issuance of personal hearing notice by the Proper Officer, not able to appear in person and to represent their case. 6.GSTR-9 Late fee: Assessee not paid GSTR-9 late fee of Rs. 200/- each under SGST and CGST Assessee filed GSTR-9 and the GSTN common portal allowed him to file GSTR-9 without late fee and accordingly, he filed GSTR-9 return and hence, the question of late fee does not arise at all. No physical notice for personal hearing is served and the personal hearing notice/order is said to be uploaded only in the GSTN Common Portal and thus due to no knowledge about the issuance of personal hearing notice by the Proper Officer, not able to appear in person and to represent their case. 4/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Interest and Penalty: The Proper Officer has levied consequential interest and penalty. Since the tax demanded itself is not sustainable as stated above, the consequential interest and penalty levied is also liable to be quashed. No physical notice for personal hearing is served and the personal hearing notice/order is said to be uploaded only in the GSTN Common Portal and thus due to no knowledge about the issuance of personal hearing notice by the Proper Officer, not able to appear in person and to represent their case.
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.
In view thereof, this Writ Petition is allowed on the following terms: (i) Within four weeks from the date of receipt of a 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 31.10.2025 shall 5/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 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. (v)No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 29.04.2026 Ns NCC: Yes/No To The Deputy State Tax Officer-1, South Avani Moola Steet Circle, Commercial Taxes Buildings, Dr.Thangaraj Salai, Madurai District 625 020. 6/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J. Ns
2026 7/7 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.