Tvl.Ks Senthil Kumar 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 the order was passed without jurisdiction and in violation of statutory provisions, citing issues with accessing the web portal for communication.
Held
The Court held that an opportunity should be granted to the assessee to present their submissions and documents, considering the nature of discrepancies and the reason for non-participation. The impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remanded back to the respondent.
Key Issues
Whether the ex-parte assessment order was passed without proper jurisdiction and opportunity to the assessee, and if the grounds for assessment were legally tenable.
Sections Cited
Section 73, Section 17(5), Section 50
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Before: and
This writ petition challenges the impugned order dated 13.12.2025 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 representing the revenue. 3.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 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Discrepancies found/grounds on which the order is passed Explanation offered by the Assessee on merits Explanation for not availing the opportunity 1.Claim of ineligible ITC under Section 17(5) As far as allegation of claim of ineligible ITC, the petitioner submits that he is a contractor and during the course of business he had effected purchase of tiles from Tvl.Lakshmi Marbles (33AAFFL0812L1ZK) for using the same in the execution of contract. As the purchase of tiles is only for business purpose, he is eligible claim the ITC and the allegation of ineligible claim of ITC under Section 17(5) of the GST Act is factually and legally not correct. 2.Late fee for belated filing of form GSTR 01 3.Late fee for non filing of GSTR-9 The petitioner submits that due to inadvertent mistake the part time accountant had failed to upload and file the return pertaining to tax period December 2021 and March 2022 which was filed a later date. The petitioner submits that due to inadvertent mistake the part time accountant had failed to report invoice No.01 dated 21.03.2021 in the monthly return. Later the mistake was found and the same was reported in form GSTR 01 September 2021 return. 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. 3 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Penalty under Section 73 and interest under Section 50 of the GST Act. 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. 4.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 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. 5.In view thereof, the Writ Petition is allowed on the following terms: (i)Within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of web copy of the order, the petitioner shall deposit 25% of the disputed tax amount with the respondent, without waiting for a certified copy of the order. (ii)Upon such deposit, the impugned order dated 13.12.2025 shall stand set aside, and the matter shall stand remanded back to the file of the respondent. 4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis (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 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 raised. (v)No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 20.04.2026 NCC:Yes/No Ns To The State Tax Officer, Commercial Taxes Building, Karaikudi. 5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J. Ns and W.M.P(MD)No.8764 of 2026 20.04.2026 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.