Tvl White Nights Entertainment vs. State Tax Officer

Heard Mr.V.Parthiban, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.R.Suresh Kumar, learned Additional Government Pleader, who takes notice for the respondents. 3/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

These writ petitions have been filed by the same assessee. The orders impugned in these writ petitions were passed in exercise of powers under Section 73 of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. It was found that the petitioner had wrongfully claimed Input Tax Credit with reference to different transactions. Although a show cause notice was issued, the petitioner failed to submit any reply and consequently, an ex-parte order was passed. The petitioner subsequently preferred appeals, however, the same were filed with a delay of 13 days beyond the condonable limit. Hence, the appeals were rejected. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned orders have been passed merely on account of the default on the part of the seller. It is further submitted that the petitioner had stopped trading only because the show cause notice as well as the impugned orders were uploaded on the portal. However, there was some lapse on the part of the petitioner in not submitting a reply. He further submits that the transactions were genuine and that he is in possession of invoices and other supporting documents thereof. 4/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submits that when the show cause notice was issued, the petitioner ought to have responded to the same. As per the relevant rules, service of notice is complete by uploading on the portal. It is further submitted that where an appeal is filed beyond the condonable limit, the appellate authority has no option but to reject the same.

He further submits that the claim of Input Tax Credit is on the basis of a bogus invoice. It is found that the seller in question is nothing but a bill trading company without any actual business.

I have considered the rival submissions made on either side and perused the material record of the case.

It may be true that the seller in question is only a bill trading company, in which case the invoice will become bogus but however, an opportunity can be granted for the petitioner to put forth its case. It is true that uploading of the show cause notice in the portal and passing of the order and uploading the same in the portal amounts to service as per 5/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

In view thereof, all the three writ petitions are allowed on the following terms:- i. The petitioner is directed to deposit 25% of the disputed tax amount before the respondent within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a web copy of this order, without waiting for the certified copy of the order. ii. On such deposit, the impugned order dated 03.03.2025 & 30.09.2025 are set aside and the matter is remanded back to the file of the respondent. iii. Thereafter, the petitioner is directed to appear before the respondent without fail, file any additional reply, and produce all documents in support of his claim . iv. Upon receipt of the same, the respondents are directed to reconsider the issue afresh and and pass appropriate orders on 6/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis