P. Venkatesan vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner challenged an ex-parte assessment order passed under Section 73 of the TNGST Act, 2017. The petitioner claimed they did not receive proper notice due to reliance on the web portal and had valid explanations for the discrepancies.
Held
The Court granted the petitioner an opportunity to present their case by remanding the matter back to the respondent. This was conditional upon the petitioner depositing 25% of the disputed tax amount.
Key Issues
Whether the ex-parte assessment order was validly passed without affording sufficient opportunity to the petitioner, and if the petitioner had valid grounds to contest the ITC claims and penalties.
Sections Cited
Section 73, Section 50, Section 17(5), Section 16(1), Section 31
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Before: and
This writ petition challenges the impugned order dated 14.11.2025 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) Excess claim of ITC availed with respect to form GSTR 2A to that of GSTR 3B return ii)
Claim
of ineligible ITC as per Section 17(5) iii) Late fee for belated filing of form GSTR 01 return iv) Penalty under Section 73 and interest
under Section 50 of the GST Act As far as alleged excess claim of ITC, he submits that the purchase was covered by proper tax invoice with collection of GST tax as provided under Section 31 of the GST Act and Rule 36 of the GST Rules. With regard to claim of ineligible ITC under section 17(5) of the GST Act, as per the provisions of Section 16(1) of CGST Act 2017, a registered person is entitled to take credit of the input tax charged on any supply of goods or services which are used or intended to be used in the course or furtherance of business. As he had incurred expenses for business purpose only i.e. being a works contractor, he had effected purchase of cement for business purpose only and as the same is infurtherance of business. Hence he is entitled to claim the ITC. As far as levy of late fee, only due to covid pandamic there was the delay uploading and filing the return. 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 3/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis availing the opportunity, I believe that an opportunity can be granted to the assessee to 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.
It is stated that 3% of the amount had already been paid. In view thereof, this Writ Petition is allowed on the following terms: (i) The petitioner shall pay the balance 22% of the disputed tax amount within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a web copy of this order, without waiting for a certified copy of the order; (ii) Upon such deposit, the impugned order dated 14.11.2025 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 4/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 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; No costs. Consequently the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
2026 sji NCC: Yes/No To The Deputy State Tax Officer, Tirupathur Assessment Circle, Commercial Tax Building, Tirupathur. 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.