Velmurugan vs. The Apellat Deputy Commissioner (GST) (Appeals)

Facts

The petitioner, Velmurugan, filed a writ petition challenging an ex-parte order of assessment dated 13.12.2025, passed by the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer / Deputy State Tax Officer – I, Theni – II, under Section 73 of the TNGST Act. The petitioner contended that they had not availed the opportunity to respond to the show cause notice. The petitioner had belatedly uploaded an appeal and paid 10% of the disputed amount. The court considered the petitioner's submission and the payment already made.

Held

The Court held that the ex-parte order of assessment dated 13.12.2025 was to be set aside. The reasoning was based on the petitioner's submission that they had not availed the opportunity to respond to the show cause notice and had subsequently paid 10% of the disputed amount. The Court found it appropriate to grant the petitioner an opportunity to present their case. The ratio decidendi is that an ex-parte assessment order may be quashed and the matter remitted for fresh consideration if the assessee demonstrates a bona fide intent to comply and seeks an opportunity to be heard, even if belatedly. The operative directions were that the petitioner must pay the balance 15% of the disputed tax amount within four weeks. Upon payment, the impugned order would stand set aside, and the matter would be remitted to the respondent for fresh consideration. The petitioner was directed to appear before the respondent, file their reply, and produce documents. Any bank account attachment made pursuant to the impugned order was to be raised. No costs were imposed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the ex-parte order of assessment dated 13.12.2025, passed under Section 73 of the TNGST Act, is arbitrary and illegal, considering the petitioner did not avail the opportunity to respond to the show cause notice? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the ex-parte order was passed without affording them a proper opportunity to present their case. They also highlighted that they had belatedly filed an appeal and paid 10% of the disputed amount, indicating a willingness to comply. Revenue's arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondents (revenue).