Tvl. A.K. Enterprises vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Tvl.A.K.Enterprises, represented by its Proprietor P. Arunkumar, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 24.02.2025 issued by the Assistant Commissioner (ST), Madurai. The impugned order was passed ex-parte due to a mismatch between GSTR 3B and GSTR 2A. The petitioner claimed that due to a lack of technical expertise and reliance on a part-time accountant, they failed to notice the show cause notice uploaded on the GSTN Common Portal and consequently missed the opportunity to respond. The respondent contended that uploading the notice on the portal constituted proper service, and the petitioner should have participated in the proceedings.
Held
The Court held that while the respondent's contention regarding proper service through portal upload has merit, considering the petitioner's explanation for non-compliance and the overall facts, an opportunity should be granted. The Court noted that 10% of the disputed tax amount had already been paid by the petitioner. Consequently, the impugned order dated 24.02.2025 was set aside, and the matter was remitted back to the respondent for fresh consideration. The petitioner was directed to pay the balance 15% of the disputed tax amount within four weeks of receiving the order's web copy. Upon such payment, the petitioner must appear before the respondent, file a reply, and produce supporting documents for the respondent to consider in accordance with the law before passing fresh orders. No costs were imposed.
Key Issues
1. Whether the ex-parte order passed by the respondent is liable to be quashed for violation of statutory provisions and lack of jurisdiction, considering the petitioner's explanation for non-compliance? The petitioner argued that the ex-parte order was passed without proper jurisdiction and in clear violation of statutory provisions, attributing their non-compliance to a lack of technical knowledge and reliance on their accountant who failed to notice the show cause notice on the GSTN portal. The respondent contended that uploading the show cause notice and the order on the GSTN portal amounts to proper service, and the petitioner cannot approach the court belatedly after failing to participate in the proceedings. The respondent argued that it was the petitioner's responsibility to monitor the portal and participate in the assessment proceedings.
Sections Cited
None explicitly mentioned in the provided text, but the context implies sections related to show cause notices, ex-parte orders, and opportunity to be heard under GST law.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Before: and
This writ petition is filed challenging the impugned order dated 24.02.2025. 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. 3.It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that owing to his 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 notice the fact of issuing show cause notice. 2/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Per Contra, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondent would submit that uploading of show cause notice and the order in the portal amounts to proper service and it is for the petitioner to have participated in the proceedings and belatedly they cannot approach this Court. 5.Considering the grounds on which the assessment orders were passed and the explanation given by the petitioner in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and the overall facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that one opportunity can be granted to the petitioner. Normally, a condition to deposit 25% of the disputed tax amount is imposed. 6.It is stated that 10% of the disputed tax had already been paid. In view thereof, the writ petition is ordered on the following terms: (i)The petitioner shall pay the balance 15% of the disputed tax amount within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of web copy of this order. 3/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis (ii)Upon such payment, the impugned order dated 24.02.2025 shall stand set aside and the matter stands remitted back to the file of the respondent for fresh consideration. (iii)The petitioner shall appear before the respondent without fail and file such reply and produce such documents in his favor and it is for the respondent to consider the same in accordance with law and pass fresh orders. (iv) 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 Assistant Commissioner (ST), Tamilsangam Salai Assessment Circle, Madurai. 5/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J. rgm and W.M.P(MD).No.5814 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.