Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
D.Bharatha Chakravarthy, J
Sri Hari Krishna Product Represented by its Proprietor P.Sivalingam – Appellant
Versus
Assistant Commissioner (ST) (FAC) Jaihindpuram Assessment Circle Madurai – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. writ petition challenges gst assessment orders. (Para 1) |
| 2. ex parte assessment due to non-participation. (Para 2) |
| 3. court grants fresh hearing opportunity. (Para 4) |
| 4. petition allowed with 25% deposit condition. (Para 5) |
ORDER
This Writ Petition challenges the impugned order dated
17.11.2025 which is an assessment order passed by the first respondent under Section 73 of the TNGST Act 2017 and followed by consequential rectification order dated 17.11.2025.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader representing the revenue. 3. By the impugned orders, the assessment was made ex parte because the petitioner did not utilise the opportunities provided. The discrepancies and grounds on which the assessment order was issued, the dealer’s explanation on merits, and the reasons for not participating in the assessment proceedings are summarised briefly and presented in a table below:
4. 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
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
