Tvl. Coffee County Resorts vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer - I
Original PDF →No AI summary yet for this judgment.
Before: and
This writ petition challenges the impugned order passed by the respondent in Annexure Form DRC-07 u/s 73, Reference No: ZD3312253339198, GSTIN:33ABFPR6882B2ZL/2021-22, Tax Period: April 2021-March 2022, dated 22.12.2025, 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 2/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
ITC to be reversed on non-business transactions
and exempt supplies: The Assessee has not reversed the ITC proportionate to his exempt
outward supplies and hence, the proportionate ITC is reversed. The assessee submit that during the course of his business activities, he claimed Input Tax Credit (ITC) on inward supply of goods, which is used for the taxable outward supply of the same and not claimed any ITC which is not used for exempted outward supply and hence, the question of ITC to be reversed on exempt supplies does not arise at all. The respondent has failed to grant an effective opportunity of personal hearing and that too when the assessee personally met the respondent and specifically requested for six weeks time and thus the impugned notice/order which is uploaded only in the GSTN common portal is not sustainable in law. 2.Ineligible ITC u/s 17(5) of the GST Act, 2017: ITC claimed on insurance, iron and steel, tiles, electrical goods and paint, which is blocked The assessee submitted that he has not claimed any ineligible ITC u/s 17(5) of the GST Act, 2017 as alleged by the respondent, whereas he has claimed the ITC, which is used in the taxable outward supply and thereby paid the corresponding tax on his outward supply, due to the department then and there through returns and hence, the question of utilization of ineligible ITC as alleged by the respondent does not arise at all. The respondent has failed to grant an effective opportunity of personal hearing and that too when the assessee personally met the respondent and specifically requested for six weeks time and thus the impugned notice/order which is uploaded only in the GSTN common portal is not sustainable in law. 3.GSTR-1 Late fees: Proper Officer has levied GSTR-1 Late fees for belated filing of GSTR-1 return Assessee claimed that GSTR-1 is not a return, but only outward supply statement and hence, no late fee is leviable and moreover, since he paid tax through GSTR-3B along with required late fees, mere non-filing of GSTR-1 in time which do not involve with any revenue impact, there is no revenue loss and hence, the late fee in this regard is not correct. The respondent has failed to grant an effective opportunity of personal hearing and that too when the assessee personally met the respondent and specifically requested for six weeks time and thus, the impugned notice/order which is uploaded only in the GSTN common portal is not sustainable in law.
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 3/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 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 22.12.2025 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. 4/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis (v)No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 29.04.2026 Ns NCC: Yes/No To The Deputy State Tax Officer-I, Dindigul (Town) Circle, Commercial Tax Buildings, Dindigul District. 5/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J. Ns
2026 6/6 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.