Sri Pavithra Agencies vs. The Deputy Commissioner (GST Appeal)

Facts

The petitioner, Sri Pavithra Agencies, challenged an order dated 26.12.2025 passed by the State Tax Officer, Ambasamudram Assessment Circle, under Section 73 of the TNGST Act. The petitioner deals in exempt goods like petroleum products, with only a minimal quantity of products such as rubber and lubricant oils falling under the GST regime. The petitioner reported its total turnover as exempted, but this was not accepted, leading to the impugned order. The petitioner sought quashing of the order and the consequential Form GST DRC-07. The impugned order was passed due to the alleged lack of supporting documents for the petitioner's claim of exemption.

Held

The Court held that an opportunity should be granted to the petitioner to submit supporting documents for its claim of exemption. The Court noted the petitioner's assertion that only a minimal amount of turnover, specifically relating to lubricant oils, falls within the GST regime. The Court observed that the impugned order was passed primarily because no supporting documents were filed by the petitioner. Therefore, the Court decided to set aside the impugned order and grant the petitioner an opportunity to file additional replies and all supporting documents for its claim of exemption, particularly for the products identified by the respondent. Upon submission of these documents, the respondent is directed to consider the matter afresh and decide in accordance with the law. The Court expressly did not decide on the merits of the exemption claim itself, but rather on the procedural aspect of providing an opportunity to substantiate the claim.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order dated 26.12.2025, passed under Section 73 of the TNGST Act, is liable to be quashed on the grounds of denial of natural justice and lack of proper consideration of the petitioner's claim of exemption for its turnover. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that it deals primarily in exempt goods (petroleum products) and that only a minimal quantity of products like rubber and lubricant oils are within the GST regime. The petitioner asserted that its total turnover was exempted and that the impugned order, which did not accept this claim, was passed without proper consideration. The petitioner argued that despite filing a reply to the show-cause notice, the order was passed solely due to the absence of supporting documents, and that an opportunity to submit these documents should have been granted. Respondents' arguments: The learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents argued that it is the duty of the assessee to prove before the Authority that the goods in question are exempted. The respondents contended that in the absence of any documentary evidence supporting the petitioner's claim, the assessment order was rightly passed.