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

Facts

The petitioner, Tvl. EPR Loganathan and Company, filed a writ petition challenging an ex-parte assessment order dated 17.11.2025, passed by the Deputy State Tax Officer-II, Palani, under Section 73 of the TNGST Act, 2017. The assessment order was issued for the tax period 2018-19 due to discrepancies between GSTR-7 and GSTR-3B returns. The petitioner contended that they were unable to reconcile the difference and that there was no physical service of the proceedings. Their in-house consultant had left, and the new consultant only noticed the order on the portal after the new consultant took charge in March 2026. The petitioner sought to quash the impugned order and its accompanying GST DRC-07.

Held

The Court held that an opportunity should be granted to the assessee to present their submissions and produce relevant supporting documents before the respondent assessing officer. The Court reasoned that considering the nature of the discrepancies, the explanation provided by the assessee for not availing the opportunity (due to change of consultant and lack of physical service), and on equitable grounds, it was appropriate to grant a further chance. The ratio decidendi is that procedural lapses and lack of proper service, when explained with supporting reasons and a genuine attempt to reconcile discrepancies, can warrant setting aside an ex-parte order and remanding the matter for fresh consideration. The Court directed the petitioner to deposit 25% of the disputed tax amount within four weeks. Upon deposit, the impugned order would be set aside, and the matter remanded to the respondent for fresh consideration, with the assessee required to appear and submit their reply and documents. Any bank account attachment made pursuant to the impugned order would also stand raised.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner, Tvl. EPR Loganathan and Company, should be granted an opportunity to present their submissions and supporting documents before the respondent assessing officer, despite having failed to avail previous opportunities, considering the explanation provided for non-compliance and the nature of the discrepancies, under Section 73 of the TNGST Act, 2017? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that they were in a position to reconcile the difference between GSTR-7 and GSTR-3B. They further explained that their previous consultant left their business, and the new consultant took charge in March 2026, only noticing the impugned order on the portal. They claimed there was no physical service of the proceedings, necessitating an opportunity to present their case. Revenue's arguments: The judgment records no specific arguments from the revenue side regarding the petitioner's contentions or the validity of the ex-parte assessment.