Avr Silicates Industries vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer - 2 - Madras High Court, 15 April 2026

Before: and

This writ petition challenges the impugned order dated 24.10.2025, which is an assessment order passed under Section 73 of the CGST Act 2017. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader representing the revenue.

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 2 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis in the assessment proceedings are summarised briefly and presented in a table below: Discrepancies found/Grounds on which the order is passed Explanation offered by the Assessee on merits Explanation for not availing the opportunity (i)

Excess availment of ITC of ?1,90,404/-on account

of mismatch between GSTR-2A and GSTR-3B. (ii) Disallowed ITC

under Section 17(5) treating certain purchases

as ineligible. (iii)

Wrongly claim of ITC without proper reconciliation of supplier data. (I) Mismatch is due to supplier- side errors and timing differences, not due to any wrongful claim. (ii) The petitioner has received goods, possesses valid tax invoices, and accounted all transactions in books. GSTR-2A is only a facilitative statement and cannot be the sole basis for denial of ITC. (iii) The ITC under Section 17(5) has been wrongly denied as the goods were used for repair and maintenance in business. (iv) No enquiry was conducted with suppliers to establish non- genuineness of transactions. (i) Unaware of the proceedings as notices were only uploaded on the GST portal. Being a small-scale unit, the petitioner relied on a part-time accountant for GST compliance. (ii) The accountant failed to inform the petitioner about the show cause notice and hearing dates. (iii) No effective service of notice was made as per Section 169 of the TNGST Act. Hence, the petitioner was deprived of an opportunity to submit objections or attend personal hearing. 3 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

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.

In view of this, the writ petition is allowed on the following terms:- i. Within four weeks of receiving the 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 24.10.2025 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 stand raised. v. No costs. Consequently the connected miscellaneous petition shall stand closed. 15.04.2026 Index: Yes Speaking Order: Yes Neutral Citation: No rgm To The Deputy State Tax Officer – 2, Virudhunagar Il Assessment Circle, Commercial Taxes Buildings, Virudhunagar. 5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY

, J.

rgm and W.M.P(MD)No.8065 of 2026 15.04.2026 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis