M/S J Infra vs. The State Tax Officer
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner challenged an ex-parte assessment order issued under Section 73 of the TNGST Act, 2017. The petitioner claimed a discrepancy in turnover reporting was due to an inadvertent mistake by the Block Development Office and that their accountant failed to notice the proceedings uploaded only on the web portal.
Held
The Court found merit in the petitioner's explanation for not availing the opportunity and the fact that the disputed tax had already been recovered. It set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the respondent for fresh consideration.
Key Issues
Whether an ex-parte assessment order passed without the assessee availing opportunities, due to technical/procedural reasons, should be quashed when the tax demand is already recovered.
Sections Cited
Section 73, Section 50
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Before: and
This writ petition challenges the impugned order dated 12.06.2025 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: 2/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Discrepancies found/Grounds on which the assessment is passed Explanation offered by the Assessee on merits Explanation for not availing the opportunity i) Reconciliation of turnover in form GSTR-07
with supplies declared in GSTR-01/GSTR 3B return ii) Penalty under Section 73 and interest
under Section 50 of the GST Act As far as the allegation of mismatch between form GSTR 07 to that of GSTR 3B return, during the above year, he had only execued work for Rs.45,73,657/- to the Block Development Office, Village Panchayat and not for Rs.1,92,49,900/- as reported in Form GSTR 07 by them. The outward supply was also correctly reported in Form GSTR 3B return. On verification, it is ascertained that the Block Development Office by inadvertent mistake had wrongly
uploaded
certain transaction not relating to the petitioner in form GSTR 07 return and that is the reason for the alleged variation. In the absence of any excess claim or wrong, claim the question of levy of interest under Section 50 and penalty under Section 73 of the GST Act does not arise to the facts of this case. The part
time accountant failed to notice the fact of issuing
of the proceedings. The respondent had only chosen to upload all the communication, summons, notices, and orders only on the web portal. Because of the above reasons, the petitioner was not able to access the web portal which resulted in the issuance of ex parte impugned order.
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 3/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 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. In view of the fact that it is submitted that the entire disputed tax has already been recovered, no additional condition is imposed on the petitioner.
In view thereof, this Writ Petition is allowed on the following terms: (i) Since 100% towards demand of CGST and SGST amount has already been recovered, the impugned order dated 12.06.2025 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 within four weeks from the date of receipt of the web copy of the order, 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 4/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis order shall stand raised; No costs. Consequently the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
2026 sji NCC: Yes/No To The State Tax Officer, Commercial Tax Building, Nilakottai. 5/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J. sji
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.