Disposed

Tvl. Lingeswari Exports, v. The State Tax Officer

Madras HC15 Sept 2025WP(MD)/25231/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Assessee challenged ex parte GST assessment under Section 73 TNGST Act, claiming it was unaware of online-portal notice. Court quashed the order on condition the petitioner deposit 25% of disputed tax within thirty days, reply to the show cause notice, and receive a personal hearing before a fresh final order.

What did the court decide?

Impugned Section 73 order quashed subject to petitioner depositing 25% of disputed tax within 30 days, replying to SCN, with fresh hearing and final order; attachment on ITC account to be raised.

Tvl. Lingeswari Exports, Vs The State Tax Officer — GST and Indirect Tax | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

W.P(MD)No.25231 of 2025

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 15.09.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN

¶6

W.P(MD)No.25231 of 2025 and W.M.P.(MD)No.19775 of 2025

¶7

Tvl.LINGESWARI EXPORTS, Represented by its Proprietrix, S.Lingeswari, GSTIN 33ALMPL4224C1ZI, 4/79, Pottal Vilaku Junction, Terku Surankudi, Kanniyakumari – 629 501.

¶8

... Petitioner

¶9

Vs.

¶10

The State Tax Officer, Nagercoil (Rural) Assessment Circle, Commercial Taxes Buildings, Nagercoil.

¶11

... Respondent

¶12

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records on the file of the respondent in GSTIN 33ALMPL4224C1ZI/2020-21 dated 07.11.2024 passed by the Respondent under Section 73 of TNGST Act 2017 and to quash the same as cryptic, barred by limitation, non-speaking, illegal, arbitrary, wholly without jurisdiction and direct the respondent to pass assessment order

¶13

1/4

¶14

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶15

W.P(MD)No.25231 of 2025

¶16

afresh by following the Circular No.193/05/2023-GST (F.No.CBIC- / 20001/5/2023-GSTI, dated 17.07.2023.

¶17

For Respondent : Mr.R.Suresh Kumar, Addl. Government Pleader.

¶18

ORDER

¶19

Heard both sides.

¶20

2.The petitioner had suffered the impugned order at the hands of

¶21

the respondent. It is an ex parte order. The petitioner states that since notice was served only through on-line portal, the petitioner was not aware of the same.

¶22

3.The learned Additional Government Pleader submits that in similar matters, reliefs were granted by directing the assessee to deposit 25% of the disputed income tax amount.

¶23

4.The petitioner states that they will deposit 25% of the disputed tax amount through electronic cash ledger within a period of thirty days

¶24

2/4

¶25

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶26

W.P(MD)No.25231 of 2025

¶27

from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Upon such compliance, the attachment effected on the petitioner's ITC account shall be raised forthwith. The impugned order shall stand quashed. The petitioner shall thereafter reply to the show cause notice within a period of thirty days thereafter. The second respondent shall provide an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner and pass final order within a period of two months thereafter. If the petitioner fails to deposit and offer his reply to the show cause notice within the aforesaid period, the benefit of this order would stand automatically recalled and the order impugned in the writ petition can very well be enforced.

¶28

5.This writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶29

15.09.2025 NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/ No ias

¶30

To:

¶31

The State Tax Officer, Nagercoil (Rural) Assessment Circle, Commercial Taxes Buildings, Nagercoil.

¶32

3/4

¶33

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶34

W.P(MD)No.25231 of 2025

¶35

G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.

¶36

ias

¶37

W.P(MD)No.25231 of 2025

¶38

15.09.2025 (1/2)

¶39

4/4

¶40

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Tvl. Lingeswari Exports, v. The State Tax Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tvl. Lingeswari Exports, v. The State Tax Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Apollo Medicals Vs The State Tax Officer Fac

Chittammal Vs The Sub-Registrar

Tvl. Rajendran Ashok Kumar Vs The Commercial Tax Officer

M. Vasantha Vs the District Collector

A.Suharthi @ Furshiya Nihail Vs The Assistant Director

M/s.Sriram Blue Metals Vs Additional Chief Secretary to Government (Fac)