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 11.02.2026, issued by the Deputy State Tax Officer-II, Palani. The assessment order was passed under Section 73 of the TNGST Act, 2017, for the tax period 2019-20. The petitioner contended that they did not receive physical service of the proceedings, and 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 filings, which the petitioner claimed to be in a position to reconcile.

Held

The Court held that an opportunity should be granted to the assessee to present their submissions and produce supporting documents before the respondent assessing officer. The Court acknowledged the explanation provided by the assessee for not availing the opportunity, citing the departure of their previous consultant and the subsequent change in charge to a new consultant who discovered the order on the portal without physical service. The Court found that the discrepancies noted were such that an opportunity for reconciliation could be extended on equitable grounds. Therefore, the Court decided to allow the writ petition on the condition that the petitioner deposits 25% of the disputed tax amount within four weeks. Upon such 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 would stand raised.

Key Issues

1. Whether the ex-parte assessment order passed under Section 73 of the TNGST Act, 2017, for the tax period 2019-20, is liable to be quashed on the grounds of non-receipt of physical service 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 because they did not receive physical service of the proceedings. They also explained that their in-house consultant had left, and the new consultant only took charge in March 2026, discovering the impugned order on the portal. They claimed they were in a position to reconcile the differences between GSTR7 and GSTR3B. Revenue's Arguments: The revenue, represented by the Additional Government Pleader, did not explicitly record arguments in the judgment. However, the impugned order itself indicates that the assessment was made ex-parte because the petitioner did not utilize the opportunities provided.