Tvl. Shri Ram Agencies Vs The Assistant Commissioner (ST)-1

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 - 333BCBPR9170E1ZM/2020-21 dated 07.02.2025 for the assessment year 2020-21 passed by the Respondent under section 73 of TNGST Act 2017 and to quash the same as cryptic, non-speaking, illegal, arbitrary, wholly without jurisdiction and direct the respondent to pass assessment

¶13

1

¶14

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

¶15

W.P(MD)No.14771 of 2026

¶16

order afresh after affording opportunity of being heard and pass such further or other orders as this Honble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and thus render justice.

¶17

For Petitioner :Mr.N.Sudalai Muthu

¶18

For Respondents :Mr.R.Parthiban Government Advocate

¶19

ORDER

¶20

This writ petition challenges the impugned order dated 01.09.2025, which is an assessment order passed under Section 73 of the CGST Act 2017.

¶21

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate representing the revenue.

¶22

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:

¶23

2

¶24

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

¶25

W.P(MD)No.14771 of 2026

¶26

Discrepancies Explanation offered by the Explanation for not availing found/Grounds on Assessee on merits the opportunity which the order is passed The respondent alleged The petitioner explained that the The petitioner had excess availment of alleged turnover difference arose participated in the ITC of Rs.20,49,702/solely due to a technical glitch in proceedings and submitted based on mismatch the GST portal, whereby Tata Play detailed replies, between GSTR-1, invoices already reported and reconciliation statements, GSTR-9, GSTR-2A taxed during April 2021 to July sales registers, ITC workings and Rule 42 reversal 2021 were automatically and supporting records. relating to exempt duplicated in GSTR-1 for August However, the respondent turnover for AY 2021. The tax relating to those failed to any conduct of the 2021-22. The invoices had already been documents meaningful department treated discharged through GSTR-3B and verification produced and did duplicated invoices therefore no suppression of not examine the reflected in GSTR-1 turnover or revenue loss had reconciliation in its for August 2021 as occurred. The duplication was verification proper additional taxable subsequently rectified through perspective. No was turnover. It was further credit notes and annual undertaken with Tata Play alleged that the reconciliation in GSTR-9. The Limited though the dispute petitioner had availed petitioner also maintained separate related entirely to duplicated excess ITC and failed books for taxable recharge invoices pertaining to that to reverse common business and exempt charcoal entity. The respondent credit attributable to business and had not availed any mechanically rejected the exempt charcoal common ITC requiring reversal explanation on the ground business. Interest and under Rule 42. Detailed that GSTR-1 figures are final penalty were levied reconciliation statements, invoiceand proceeded solely on under Section 73 of the wise details and books of accounts portal data. Consequently, TNGST Act. were furnished to substantiate the the impugned order was claim. passed without proper consideration of the petitioner's objections and supporting materials.

¶27

3

¶28

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

¶29

W.P(MD)No.14771 of 2026

¶30

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 their submissions and produce the relevant supporting documents before the respondent assessing officer. This Court has been extending such opportunities on equitable grounds; however, under appropriate conditions. Therefore, an opportunity is granted to the petitioner assessee on the condition of depositing 25% of the disputed tax amount.

¶31

In view of this, the writ petition is allowed on the following

¶32

terms:-

¶33

i. Within four weeks of receiving the web copy of the order, the petitioner shall deposit 25% of the disputed tax amount with the respondent, without waiting for a certified copy of the order.

¶34

ii. Upon such deposit, the impugned order dated 01.09.2025 shall stand set aside, and the matter shall stand remanded back to the file of the respondent.

¶35

4

¶36

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

¶37

W.P(MD)No.14771 of 2026

¶38

iii. The assessee shall appear before the respondent without fail and submit their reply and documents in support of their claim, and it is for the respondent to consider the matter afresh and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶39