Tvl Epr Loganathan And Company vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer Ii

Facts

The petitioner, Tvl.EPR Loganathan and Company, filed a writ petition before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court challenging an ex-parte assessment order dated 17.11.2025, passed by the Deputy State Tax Officer-II, Palani. The assessment pertains to the year 2021-22 and was made under Section 73 of the TNGST Act, 2017. The petitioner contended that they did not receive physical service of the proceedings and that their previous consultant had left, with a new consultant taking charge in March 2026, who then noticed the order on the portal. The discrepancy noted was between GSTR7 and GSTR3B, which the petitioner claimed to be in a position to reconcile.

Held

The Court held that considering the nature of the discrepancies, the explanation provided by the assessee for not availing the opportunity, and the reason given for non-participation, an opportunity should be granted to the assessee to present their submissions and produce supporting documents. The Court reasoned that it has been extending such opportunities on equitable grounds, albeit under appropriate conditions. Therefore, the writ petition was allowed on the condition that the petitioner deposits 25% of the disputed tax amount within four weeks. Upon deposit, the impugned order would be set aside, and the matter would be remanded back to the respondent for fresh consideration. The Court also directed that any bank account attachment made pursuant to the impugned order shall stand raised.

Key Issues

1. Whether the ex-parte assessment order passed under Section 73 of the TNGST Act, 2017, is liable to be quashed on the grounds of non-service of proceedings and the petitioner's inability to present their case due to a change in consultant. Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the assessment order was passed ex-parte without proper service of notice. They explained that their in-house consultant left their business, and the new consultant only took charge in March 2026, discovering the impugned order on the portal. They asserted that there was no physical service of the proceedings and that they are in a position to reconcile the discrepancies between GSTR7 and GSTR3B. Respondent's Arguments: The respondent, represented by the Additional Government Pleader, did not record any specific arguments in the judgment regarding the petitioner's contentions. The judgment notes that the assessment was made ex-parte because the petitioner did not utilize the opportunities provided.