Sivakumar vs. The State Tax Officer

Facts

The petitioner, Sivakumar, filed a writ petition challenging an assessment order dated 08.10.2025, passed by the Deputy State Tax Officer-1 (second respondent) under Section 73 of the TNGST Act, 2017. The assessment order was made ex-parte because the petitioner did not utilize the opportunities provided. The impugned order was based on discrepancies, including a non-application of mind regarding a title mismatch in GST portal references. The petitioner argued that the portal reference number in the impugned order differed from the summary order and that there was no reply to the discrepancies. The petitioner also stated that they did not avail the opportunity due to a mismatch in portal references.

Held

The Court held that an opportunity should be granted to the assessee to present their submissions and produce supporting documents. The Court found that there was a non-application of mind with reference to the GST number and the tax period. Consequently, the impugned order dated 08.10.2025 was set aside. The matter was remanded back to the file of the second respondent for fresh consideration. The petitioner was directed to appear before the second respondent without fail, submit their reply and supporting documents, and the second respondent was to consider the matter afresh and pass orders in accordance with law. The Court also directed that any attachment of the bank account made pursuant to the impugned order shall stand raised. The ratio decidendi is that procedural fairness and proper application of mind are essential for valid assessment orders, and where these are lacking, especially due to a demonstrable error in the assessment process, an opportunity for the assessee to be heard should be granted.

Key Issues

1. Whether the ex-parte assessment order passed by the second respondent under Section 73 of the TNGST Act, 2017, is liable to be quashed on the grounds of non-application of mind and procedural irregularities? (Mixed question of law and fact) The petitioner contended that the assessment order was passed without proper application of mind, citing a mismatch in GST portal references and the summary order. They argued that the ex-parte nature of the order, stemming from their inability to participate due to these discrepancies, rendered it unconstitutional. The petitioner sought an opportunity to present their case and supporting documents. The respondents, represented by the Additional Government Pleader, did not record any specific arguments in the judgment regarding the merits of the petitioner's claim or the validity of the ex-parte order. The judgment notes that the petitioner did not utilize the opportunities provided.