Tvl Thiruppathi Steels vs. The State Tax Officer
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Tvl.Thiruppathi Steels, filed a writ petition challenging an assessment order dated 29.07.2025 and a subsequent order dated 16.09.2025 rejecting their rectification application. The assessment order, passed by the State Tax Officer, Woraiyur Assessment Circle, raised a significant tax demand. The petitioner contended that the demand arose due to a typographical error in their GSTR 9C filing for the period 2021-22. They had filed a rectification application, which was rejected. The petitioner sought to quash the rejection order and have the respondent reconsider their assessment based on a corrected GSTR 9C. The petitioner admitted to not having originally pleaded the typographical error before the assessing officer, leading to an ex-parte order.
Held
The Court held that there was a prima facie case of a typographical error on the part of the assessee in filling up the GSTR 9C. The Court noted that the petitioner failed to reply to the original assessment proceedings, resulting in an ex-parte order. However, considering the possibility of a genuine error, the Court set aside the impugned order. The matter was remitted to the respondent for fresh consideration, subject to the petitioner depositing 10% of the disputed tax amount within two weeks of receiving the order. The respondent was directed to pass a fresh assessment order after affording the petitioner an opportunity to be heard and submit their reply within eight weeks. The Court also directed that if the respondent accepts the petitioner's stand, the deposited amount would be refunded without interest. The petitioner undertook to submit their reply and participate in the enquiry.
Key Issues
1. Whether the rejection of the petitioner's rectification application under Section 73 of the TNGST Act, 2017, was justified, considering the alleged typographical error in the GSTR 9C filing and the subsequent ex-parte assessment order. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the substantial tax demand was a direct consequence of a typographical error in their GSTR 9C. They contended that if this error were rectified, the demand would cease to exist. They emphasized that the rejection of their rectification application was cryptic and non-speaking, leading to an illegal and arbitrary outcome. Respondent's arguments: The respondent did not explicitly record arguments in the judgment. However, the context implies the respondent likely upheld the assessment order and the rejection of the rectification application, possibly on grounds that the issues were not properly raised during the original assessment or that the rectification application was not maintainable.
Sections Cited
Section 73
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Before: and
Heard both sides.
The writ petitioner suffered an adverse assessment order at the hands of the assessing officer. The huge demand has been now raised by the assessee. The petitioner had filed a rectification petition. But the petitioner apprehends that the approach in the rectification petition will not be taken note of on the ground that they were not originally pleaded before the assessing officer.
The learned counsel for the petitioner was at pains to emphasize the fact that due to the typographical error in GSTR 9C, the demand has been raised. It is his further contention that if the error in GSTR 9C is rectified, then the impugned demand will not survive at all. Unfortunately, the petitioner failed to reply and that is how, he suffered the impugned exparte order.
Normally in such matters, there is no remission by calling upon him to deposit 25% of the disputed tax amount. In this case, prima facie, it appears that there was a typographical error on the part of the assessee while filling up the GSTR 9C. 2/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
In view of the same, the order impugned in the writ petition is set aside. The matter is remitted to the file of the respondent subject to the petitioner remitting 10% of the disputed tax amount. The petitioner seeks only two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order to make the said payment. The benefit of this order will enure in favour of the writ petitioner only on such payment as undertaken before me. If he has not paid the disputed tax amount within the said period, this order would stand automatically recalled. The assessing officer is also further directed to dispose of the matter after affording opportunity to the petitioner within 8 weeks. In the event of the assessing officer accepting the stand of the writ petitioner, the amount now directed to be deposited will be forthwith and without any delay. But it would not carry interest. The petitioner undertakes to submit his reply and also participate in the enquiry.
The writ petition is allowed accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
2025 Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/ No rmi 3/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J. rmi To The State Tax Officer, Woraiyur Assessment Circle, Commercial Taxes Buildings, Trichy-18. 16.10.2025 4/4 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.