Tvl. Om Sakthi Timber And Furnitures vs. The State Tax Officer
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Tvl. Om Sakthi Timber and Furnitures, represented by its Proprietor S. Senthilkumar, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 12.12.2025 passed by the respondent, The State Tax Officer, Sengottai Assessment Circle. The impugned order was passed ex-parte for the assessment year 2021-22 under Section 73 of the TNGST Act, 2017, due to a mismatch between GSTR 3B and GSTR 2A, and the petitioner's failure to avail an opportunity after a show cause notice was uploaded. The petitioner contended that due to a lack of technical expertise and reliance on a part-time accountant, they were unaware of the proceedings. They also claimed the goods in question were exempted.
Held
The Court held that the impugned order dated 12.12.2025, passed ex-parte, should be set aside and the matter remitted back to the respondent for fresh consideration. The Court acknowledged the petitioner's contention regarding lack of technical expertise and reliance on an accountant, which led to their non-participation. Considering this, and the fact that the petitioner claimed the goods were exempted, the Court decided to grant one more opportunity. This opportunity was conditional upon the petitioner paying 10% of the disputed tax amount within four weeks. Upon payment, the impugned order would be set aside, and the petitioner would be required to appear before the respondent, file a reply, and produce documentary evidence. The respondent would then pass a fresh order in accordance with the law. The Court noted that the appeal period had not yet expired. The issue of whether the goods were indeed exempted was not definitively decided but was a factor in granting the petitioner relief.
Key Issues
1. Whether the ex-parte assessment order dated 12.12.2025, passed under Section 73 of the TNGST Act, 2017, is liable to be quashed as cryptic, non-speaking, illegal, arbitrary, and without jurisdiction, considering the petitioner's claim of lack of knowledge and technical expertise to access GSTN portal notices and orders. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that they lacked the requisite knowledge and technical expertise to access notices and orders on the GSTN Common Portal and were dependent on their part-time accountant, who failed to inform them about the assessment proceedings. Therefore, they could not be reasonably expected to verify the portal or participate independently. They also contended that the goods were under an exempted category. Revenue's arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondent revenue.
Sections Cited
Section 73
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Before: and
This writ petition is filed challenging the impugned order dated 12.12.2025. 2.Upon perusal of the impugned order, it can be seen that when there was mismatch between GSTR 3B and GSTR 2A, the petitioner did not avail the opportunity, when the show cause notice is uploaded and the final order was passed. Accordingly, the impugned order came to be passed ex-parte.
It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that owing to her lack of requisite knowledge and technical expertise to access notices and orders on the GSTN Common Portal, he was entirely dependent upon his part time accountant, who failed to inform about the assessment proceedings. Therefore, in the present case, the petitioner cannot reasonably be expected to periodically verify the portal or independently participate in the proceedings. 2/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
It is further contended that the goods come under the exempted category.
Normally this court imposes 25% of the disputed tax amount, however, in this case considering the fact that the petitioner's contention that the goods come under the exempted category, I am of the view that a lesser percentage can be imposed. Further the order is also passed only on 12.12.2025 and the appeal period is also not over and is also taken into account.
In view thereof, one more opportunity can be granted to the petitioner, however, on condition to pay 10% of the disputed amount. This writ petition is ordered on the following terms: (i)The petitioner shall pay 10% of the disputed tax amount within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of web copy of this order. Upon such payment, the impugned order dated 12.12.2025 shall stand set aside and the matter stands remitted back to the file of the respondent. The petitioner shall appear before the respondent without fail and file 3/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 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. (ii) 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 The State Tax Officer, Sengottai Assessment Circle, Commercial Taxes Buildings, Kollam Main Road – 627809. 5/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J. rgm and W.M.P(MD).No.5821 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.