Facts of the Case

The petitioner, Shiv Shankar Singh, approached the Madras High Court challenging an assessment order dated 06.02.2025 passed under Section 73 of the TNGST Act, 2017, as well as the consequential appellate order dated 15.12.2025 by which the petitioner’s appeal had been rejected on the ground of delay.

The assessment was completed ex parte because the petitioner had not utilised the opportunities granted during the assessment proceedings. The principal discrepancy concerned a turnover mismatch between GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B.

On merits, the petitioner’s explanation was that the same turnover mismatch issue had already been explained to and accepted by the Department, and that the earlier proceedings had been dropped on 19.10.2023.

As regards the failure to participate in the assessment proceedings, the petitioner explained that a staff member had died at the work site on 10.01.2025, and due to the sudden death and resultant confusion, the petitioner was not in a position to immediately prepare and submit a detailed reply. The judgment specifically summarised these aspects in the table appearing on page 2 of the order.

Issues Involved

The principal issues before the Court were whether the ex parte assessment order passed under Section 73 of the TNGST Act should be sustained when the petitioner sought an opportunity to place its explanation and supporting documents before the Assessing Officer; whether the petitioner’s explanation concerning the GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B turnover mismatch deserved fresh consideration; whether the consequential appellate rejection on the ground of delay should continue to operate; and whether equitable relief could be granted subject to an appropriate condition protecting the interests of the Revenue.

Petitioner’s Arguments

The petitioner contended that the disputed turnover mismatch between GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B was not a fresh or unexplained issue. According to the petitioner, the very same mismatch had previously been explained before the Department, accepted by it, and the related proceedings had been dropped on 19.10.2023.

The petitioner further explained that the failure to avail the opportunities during the assessment proceedings was attributable to exceptional circumstances arising from the death of a staff member at the work site on 10.01.2025. The sudden incident and ensuing confusion prevented the petitioner from immediately preparing a detailed response.

Accordingly, the petitioner sought an effective opportunity to submit a proper reply and relevant supporting documents before the Assessing Officer so that the matter could be examined afresh on merits.

Respondents’ Arguments

The Revenue was represented before the Court by learned counsel for the Government of Tamil Nadu. The order records that the Court heard both the petitioner’s counsel and counsel representing the Revenue.

The assessment had been made ex parte on the basis that the petitioner did not utilise the opportunities provided during the proceedings. The impugned assessment and consequential appellate rejection therefore represented the subsisting position of the Revenue when the writ petition was considered.

The judgment does not record any elaborate separate substantive counter-arguments by the respondents beyond the Revenue’s representation and the procedural background reflected in the impugned proceedings. Accordingly, no additional argument should be attributed to the respondents beyond what is recorded in the order.

Court Order / Findings

The Madras High Court considered the nature of the discrepancies, the explanation offered by the assessee, and the reason advanced for not availing the earlier opportunity. The Court held that an opportunity could be granted to the assessee to present its submissions and produce relevant supporting documents before the Assessing Officer.

The Court clarified that such opportunities had been extended on equitable grounds, but under appropriate conditions. Consequently, the petitioner was granted relief subject to depositing 25% of the disputed tax amount.

The writ petition was allowed on the following terms:

  1. The petitioner shall, within four weeks from receipt of the web copy of the order, deposit 25% of the disputed tax amount with the second respondent, without waiting for a certified copy of the order.
  2. Upon such deposit, the impugned assessment order dated 06.02.2025 and the consequential appellate order dated 15.12.2025 shall stand set aside.
  3. The matter shall stand remanded to the file of the second respondent.
  4. The assessee shall appear before the second respondent without fail and submit its reply and documents supporting its claim.
  5. The second respondent shall consider the matter afresh and pass orders in accordance with law.
  6. Since the assessment order was set aside, any bank account attachment made pursuant to the impugned order shall stand raised.
  7. No costs were awarded, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.

Important Clarification

The judgment is significant because the Court did not finally adjudicate the underlying GSTR-1 versus GSTR-3B turnover mismatch on merits. Instead, it restored the matter to the Assessing Officer so that the petitioner could place a proper reply and supporting documents on record.

The setting aside of the assessment order and consequential appellate rejection was also conditional, not unconditional. The operative relief depended upon the petitioner depositing 25% of the disputed tax amount within four weeks from receipt of the web copy of the order.

A further important consequence expressly recorded by the Court was that, once the impugned assessment order stood set aside in terms of the Court’s directions, any attachment of the bank account made pursuant to that assessment order would stand raised.

The case therefore illustrates the High Court’s exercise of writ jurisdiction on equitable grounds where an ex parte GST assessment warranted a fresh opportunity, while simultaneously safeguarding Revenue interests through a substantial pre-deposit condition.

Sections

Section 73 of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (TNGST Act) — Assessment proceedings forming the basis of the impugned order.

Article 226 of the Constitution of India — Constitutional writ jurisdiction invoked for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari.

Link to download the order -
https://www.mytaxexpert.co.in/uploads/1783068595_424compressed.pdf

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.