Tvl. C. Kumar vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer - Ii
Original PDF →No AI summary yet for this judgment.
Before: and
This writ petition challenges the impugned order dated 03.09.2025, which is an assessment order passed under Section 74 of the TNGST 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 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 (I)
Mismatch between Form GSTR-7
and Form GSTR-3B, treating
the difference
as suppressed turnover. The mismatch is due to timing differences between invoice- based reporting (GSTR-3B) and payment-based TDS reporting (GSTR-7). In works contracts, payments are received later through RA bills, causing natural variance in returns. GST rate revision from 12% to 18% during the year also contributed to reporting differences. GSTR-7 reflects gross payments including advances and prior period adjustments, not actual taxable turnover. (i) All notices (DRC-01A, DRC-01, hearing notices) were uploaded only on the GST portal without proper service. (ii) The petitioner, being a small contractor, depended on a part-time accountant for GST compliance. The accountant was suffering from serious health issues and failed to inform about the notices. (iii) The petitioner was therefore unaware of the proceedings and could not file a reply or attend hearing.
Considering the nature of the discrepancies noted, 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; 3 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 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 03.09.2025 shall stand set aside, and the matter shall stand remanded back to the file of the respondent. 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. 4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 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 5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
, J.
rgm To The Deputy State Tax Officer – II, Pudukkottai - 3 Assessment Circle, Commercial Taxes Buildings, Pudukkottai.
and W.M.P(MD)No.8059 of 2026 15.04.2026 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.