Tvl. Ideal Marketing vs The Deputy State Tax Officer

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 48249

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

W.P.(MD)No.13566 of 2026
and
W.M.P.(MD)No.10101 of 2026

Tvl.Ideal Marketing,
Represented by its Proprietor: G.Arumugam,
61/45 Perumal Kovil South Mada Street,
Madurai District 625 001. .. Petitioner
Vs.
The Deputy State Tax Officer-1,
South Avani Moola Steet Circle,
Commercial Taxes Buildings,
Dr.Thangaraj Salai,
Madurai District 625 020. .. Respondent

For Petitioner : Mr.A.Satheesh Murugan
For Respondent : Mr.R.Sureshkumar
Additional Government Pleader

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY

DATED: 29.04.2026

Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the respondent vide his proceedings in GSTIN : 33AHYPA0302L1ZK, year 2021-22, dated 31.10.2025 and quash the same as it is illegal, without jurisdiction and in gross violation of principles of natural justice and further direct the respondent to redo the assessment afresh after providing him an opportunity of personal hearing as per the provisions of the GST Act.

ORDER

This writ petition challenges the impugned order passed by the respondent in GSTIN : 33AHYPA0302L1ZK/2021-22, dated 31.10.2025, which is an assessment order passed under Section 73 of the TNGST Act, 2017.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondent.

3. By the impugned order, 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
1.Short Payment of tax reported in GSTR-09: Assessee paid tax, but not paid interest.	The assessee has paid tax along with interest and attached payment proof bearing challan No.25063300706912, dated 30.06.2025, but the same was not considered properly by the respondent.	No physical notice for personal hearing is served and the personal hearing notice/order is said to be uploaded only in the GSTN common portal and thus due to no knowledge about the issuance of personal hearing by the proper officer, not able to appear in person and to represent their case.
2.Reconciliation of GSTR-01 and GSTR-09: There is a difference between GSTR-01 and GSTR-09 to a tune of Rs.27,883/- each under SGST and CGST	There exists no such difference as alleged by the respondent and the relevant reconciliation filed by the assessee along with tax and interest was not properly considered by the respondent and respondent has simply rejected the reply in a non-speaking manner as 'Not satisfactory'.	No physical notice for personal hearing is served and the personal hearing notice/order is said to be uploaded only in the GSTN common portal and thus due to no knowledge about the issuance of personal hearing notice by the proper officer, not able to appear in person and to represent their case.
3.Excess ITC claim under Reverse Charge: There is a difference in tax due of Rs.28,877/- each under SGST and CGST in payment under Reverse Charge Mechanism.	The assessee has not availed any excess ITC under RCM and due to human error in entering the datas in GSTR-9, the alleged difference exists, in tax but the assesee has not availed any excess ITC as alleged, which can be evidenced from GSTR-3B summary itself.	No physical notice for personal hearing is served and the personal hearing notice/order is said to be uploaded only in the GSTN Common Portal and thus due to no knowledge about the issuance of personal hearing notice by the Proper Officer, not able to appear in person and to represent their case.
4.ITC to be reversed on non-business transactions and exempt supplies: The assessee availed common Input Tax Credit, but not reversed the ITC proportionate to non-business transactions and exempt supplies.	Assessee is trader and has not availed any common Input Tax Credit as alleged by the respondent and hence the question of reversing the proportionate ITC for taxable and exempted supplies does not arise at all. Reply filed by the assessee was simply not rejected by the respondent in a non-speaking manner by simply alleging it as 'Not satisfactory' and that too without

Click Here to Read the rest of this document