Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 39018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
D.Bharatha Chakravarthy, J
Thamara Super Market – Appellant
Versus
Deputy State Tax Officer -II – Respondent
W.M.P.(MD) No.7986 of 2026
For Petitioner: Mr.S.Karunakar
For Respondent: Mr.R.Suresh Kumar Additional Government Pleader
Important Points
Subject
Taxation - Goods and Services Tax
Act Referred
Headnote
Facts of the case:
Writ petition filed under Article 226 challenging ex parte assessment order under Section 73 dated 20.08.2024 (due to non-utilisation of opportunities) and consequential suo motu rectification order under Section 161 dated 05.02.2025. Discrepancies, explanations, and reasons for non-participation summarised in table (Para 3). Substantial tax already recovered.
Findings of Court:
Impugned orders set aside; matter remitted for fresh consideration. Assessee to appear and submit reply with documents. Assessing Officer to pass fresh orders in accordance with law. Bank account attachment raised.
Issues: Validity of ex parte assessment and rectification orders; whether opportunity should be granted despite non-participation.
Ratio Decidendi: Court consistently grants opportunities on equitable grounds to present submissions and documents, especially with substantial tax recovery, without further conditions. (Para 4)
Result: Writ petition allowed; orders quashed and remitted for fresh consideration.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. writ challenges gst assessment and rectification orders. (Para 1) |
| 2. hearing counsel; summarizes ex parte assessment. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 3. court observes recovery; grants fresh hearing. (Para 4) |
| 4. sets aside orders; remands for fresh consideration. (Para 5) |
O R D E R
This Writ Petition challenges the impugned assessment order dated
20.08.2024, passed under Section 73 of the TNGST Act, 2017 and the consequential suo motu rectification order dated 05.02.2025.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader representing the revenue.
3. By the impugned order dated 20.08.2024, 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:
Discrepancies found/Grounds on which the order is passed
Explanation offered by the Assessee on merits
Explanation for not availing the opportunity
4. Considering the nature of the discrepancies noted, the explanation provided by the assessee and the reasons given before this Court for not availing the opportunity, I believe that an opportunity can be granted to the assessee to present its submissions and produce relevant supporting documents before the respondent/Assessing Officer. This Court has consistently extended such opportunities on equitable grounds. In the present case, since 100% of IGST, 31% of CGST, and 29% of SGST are stated to have already been recovered from the petitioner, no further condition is required to be imposed, as is usually done in similar matters.
5. In view thereof, this Writ Petition is allowed on the following terms:
i. The impugned orders dated 20.08.2024 and 05.02.2025 are set aside and the matter is remitted to the file of the respondent for fresh consideration.
ii. The petitioner/assessee shall appear before the respondent, without fail and submit its reply along with supporting documents in support of its claim.
iii. It is for the respondent to consider the matter afresh and pass orders in accordance with law.
iv. Since the impugned order of assessment is set aside, any attachment of the bank account made pursuant to the said order shall stand raised.
v. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
09.04.2026 JEN Neutral Citation : No To The Deputy State Tax Officer -II, Commercial Tax Building, Bodinayakanur.
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY , J .
