Tvl.369 Tesla vs. The Proper Officer And Deputy State Tax Officer

Heard Mr.S.Karunakar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.R.Parthiban, learned Government Standing Counsel, who takes notice on behalf of the respondent.

The crux of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that, when the show cause notice was originally issued the petitioner owing to personal circumstances could 2 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis neither attend the proceedings nor effectively avail of the opportunity granted and consequently, no reply was filed.

In the said circumstances, upon finding that the conclusion reached was wholly contrary to the factual circumstances, the petitioner filed a rectification application, bringing to the notice of the respondent, in detail, the merits of the case. However, the said application was also rejected by the order dated 27.03.2026. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that if the reply submitted by the petitioner along with the additional documents is taken into consideration, there is every possibility that the Assessing Officer would reconsider the decision to accept the proposal.

Per contra, the learned Government Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent would submit that, when the show cause notice was issued earlier, no reply was filed and the petitioner merely sought repeated adjournments. The petitioner raised the present contentions only in the rectification application. It is further submitted 3 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis that rectification is intended only to correct an error apparent on the face of the record and not to reconsider the entire matter on merits.

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

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, in this case, it is submitted that the entire services provided by the petitioner are exempt and the said fact has also been noted in the rectification order. Hence, no additional condition is imposed. 4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

In view thereof, the writ petition is allowed on the following terms:- i. The impugned orders dated 30.12.2025 and 27.03.2026 is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the file of the respondent for reconsideration. ii. 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. iii. Since the impugned order of assessment is set aside, any attachment of the bank account made pursuant to the impugned order shall stand raised. iv. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition shall stand closed. 24.06.2026 NCC:Yes/No rgm 5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY