Tvl Sudarshana Enterprises v. The State Tax Officer
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated: 16.06.2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY and W.M.P(MD)Nos.12230 and 12228 of 2026 Tvl Sudarshana Enterprises, GSTIN 33EBAPK2222K1Z1, Represented by its Proprietor Mr.Suresh, 2/103D, Madathoor Byepass Road, Thoothukudi-628 008.
... Petitioner Vs.
The State Tax Officer, Commercial Tax Buildings, Kadalaiyur Road, Ettaypauram, Thoothukudi - 628 902.
...Respondent
Prayer: Writ Petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this court to issue a WRIT of CERTIORARI and call for the records pertaining to impugned Order in Form GST DRC 07 bearing reference no. ZD330225129855D/2020-21 dated 13.02.2025 issued by the Respondent and quash the same being illegal, invalid without jurisdiction and pass such other orders as this Honourable Court may deem it fit and necessary in the nature and circumstances of the case and thus render justice.
For Petitioner : Mr.Meera Ramesh For Respondent : M/s.P.Sudarkodi Nachiar Government Standing Counsel
ORDER
This writ petition challenges the impugned order dated 13.02.2025, 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 Government Advocate representing the revenue.
3. 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:
Discrepancies found/Grounds on which the order is passed Explanation offered by the Assessee on merits Explanation for not availing the opportunity
1) Mismatch between GSTR 3B and GSTR 2A Respondent levied late fee of Rs.1,96,400/- u/s. 47(2) along with general penalty of Rs.
50,000/- u/s.125 for 2nd defect.
Petitioner's GST Registration had already been cancelled with effect from 01.11.2021, the petitioner was entirely unaware of these communication.
2) Non-filing of annual returns GSTR 9/9C The petitioner has been directed to pay 25% of the disputed tax amount
4. 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.
5. In view of this, the writ petition is allowed on the following terms:- 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. ii. Upon such deposit, the impugned order dated 13.02.2025 shall stand set aside, and the matter shall stand remanded back to the file of the respondent.
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.
iv. Since the impugned order of assessment is set aside, any attachment of the bank account made pursuant to the impugned order shall stand raised.
v. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions shall stand closed.
16.06.2026 rgm
To The State Tax Officer, Commercial Tax Buildings, Kadalaiyur Road, Ettaypauram, Thoothukudi - 628 902.
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY , J.
rgm and W.M.P(MD)Nos.12230 and 12228 of 2026 16.06.2026