Tgs Agencies vs. The State Tax Officer

Facts

The petitioner, T.G.S. Agencies, represented by its Proprietrix V. Sudha, filed a writ petition challenging an ex-parte assessment order dated December 22, 2025, passed by the first respondent, the State Tax Officer, Pattukkottai II Assessment Circle. This order was issued under Section 73 of the TNGST Act, 2017, and was accompanied by a consequential Form GST DRC-07. The petitioner contended that the same discrepancies had been previously examined by the authority, who had then dropped the proceedings. The petitioner argued that the current exercise was a second attempt without considering the prior decision and that no new conditions were imposed. The impugned order was uploaded to the portal.

Held

The Court held that the impugned order dated December 22, 2025, passed under Section 73 of the TNGST Act, 2017, was to be set aside. The Court reasoned that the petitioner had brought to its notice that the matter concerning the same discrepancies had been previously considered by the authority, who had found no reason to proceed and had dropped the proceedings. The Court found merit in the petitioner's contention that a second exercise without considering the prior decision was improper. Therefore, the Court decided to remand the matter back to the respondent for reconsideration. The petitioner was directed to appear before the respondent authority and produce supporting documents for their claim of exemption, which the authority was to consider in accordance with the law. The Court also directed the authority to act upon the web copy of the order without waiting for a certified copy.

Key Issues

1. Whether the ex-parte assessment order dated December 22, 2025, passed under Section 73 of the TNGST Act, 2017, is illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction, and against the principles of natural justice, considering the petitioner's submission that the matter was previously decided and proceedings were dropped. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the impugned order was passed without considering the previous exercise where the authority had applied its mind to the same discrepancies and dropped the proceedings. They contended that the current assessment was a redundant and arbitrary action, violating principles of natural justice as it ignored prior findings. The petitioner also stated that no additional conditions were imposed in the prior decision, implying the current action was unwarranted. Revenue's arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondents (State Tax Officer and Review and Appeal Wing).