M/S. Ms Fuel Agency vs. The Assistant Commissioner (State Tax)
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, M/s. MS Fuel Agency, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 01.08.2025 passed by the Assistant Commissioner (State Tax), the 1st respondent. This order was an assessment order under Section 74 of the TNGST Act, 2017, issued due to the petitioner's failure to file the Annual Return GSTR-9 within the stipulated time. The petitioner contended that due to the cancellation of their dealership, their access to the GST portal was limited, and the show cause notice and the impugned order were uploaded only to the portal. The respondents argued that the petitioner could still access the portal even after dealership cancellation.
Held
The Court held that the impugned order dated 01.08.2025, passed under Section 74 of the TNGST Act, 2017, was passed ex-parte. Recognizing that the petitioner had limited access to the portal due to dealership cancellation, the Court decided to grant one more opportunity to the petitioner. This opportunity was conditional upon the petitioner depositing 25% of the disputed tax amount. Upon compliance with this condition, the impugned order would be set aside, and the matter would be remanded back to the 1st respondent for fresh adjudication. The petitioner would be required to appear before the respondent, file a reply, and produce documentary evidence. The Court also directed that the freezing of the petitioner's bank account would stand raised. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.
Key Issues
1. Whether the impugned order dated 01.08.2025, passed under Section 74 of the TNGST Act, 2017, is liable to be quashed for violation of the principles of natural justice, specifically concerning the non-receipt of the show cause notice and the final order due to limited portal access post-dealership cancellation? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the proceedings were conducted ex-parte and the notices were not effectively served due to limited portal access after their dealership was cancelled, thus violating principles of natural justice. Respondents' contention: The respondents argued that the petitioner could still access the GST portal even after the cancellation of their dealership.
Sections Cited
Section 74
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Before: and
The writ petition has been filed to quash the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent dated 01.08.2025. 2. The impugned order dated 01.08.2025 is an assessment order passed under Section 74 of the TNGST Act, 2017. The discrepancy noted is that the petitioner had not filed the Annual Return GSTR-9 within the time stipulated.
It can be seen that in view of the cancellation of dealership, the petitioner has only limited access to the portal. However, the impugned proceedings were conducted by uploading the Show Cause Notice as well as the impugned order only in the portal. 2/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
The learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents would submit that even after the cancellation of the dealership, the petitioner can still access the portal.
In view thereof, since the impugned order is passed ex-parte, I am of the view that one more opportunity can be granted to the petitioner, however, on condition to pay 25% of the disputed tax amount. This writ petition is ordered on the following terms:- i. The petitioner is directed to deposit 25% of the late fee amount before the 1st 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. Upon such payment, the impugned order dated 01.08.2025 is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the file of the 1st respondent. The petitioner shall appear before the respondent without fail and file such reply and produce such documentary evidence in support of his claim and the respondent authority shall pass orders fresh in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible. 3/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis (ii)It is also made clear that since the matter is remanded back for fresh disposal upon payment of the 25% of the tax liability, freezing of the petitioner's bank account shall stand raised. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 13.03.2026 Index: Yes Speaking Order: Yes Neutral Citation: No rgm 4/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis To 1. The Assistant Commissioner (State Tax), Tirunelveli Division, Commercial Tax Building, 282-A Beach Road, Tuticorin - 628 612. 2. The Deputy Commissioner (State Tax), 282-A, North Beach Road, Tuticorin - 628 001. 5/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J. rgm and W.M.P.(MD).No.5707 of 2026 13.03.2026 6/6 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.