01Facts
The petitioner, a former director of a company whose business had closed in 2024, challenged an ex parte order under Section 73 of the TNGST/CGST Act, 2017, raising a demand of ₹45,34,291 each towards CGST and SGST for FY 2021–22.
pp. 1–2, 5He contended that the assessment had wrongly attributed the company’s PAN-India turnover—including turnover from Karnataka and Telangana registrations—to its Tamil Nadu registration, despite tax having been paid on the Tamil Nadu turnover.
pp. 2–3, 5The respondent stated that the show-cause notice and reminders had been served through the GST portal and by RPAD; the physical notice was returned undelivered.
pp. 3–4The petitioner sought to have the assessment quashed and the matter remanded.
p. 102Issues
i.1. Whether the petitioner was entitled to writ relief or a remand in respect of the ex parte assessment, despite notice having been uploaded to the GST portal and attempted service by RPAD.
pp. 4–6, 8ii.2. Whether the alleged inclusion of PAN-India turnover, and the resulting disputed tax quantification, could be determined in proceedings under Article 226.
pp. 5–6, 7–803Law Applied
Section 73 of the TNGST/CGST Act, 2017, was the basis for the impugned assessment.
p. 1The Court treated portal service and attempted service by RPAD as reasonable steps to serve notice in this case; it also stated that a taxpayer closing its business must notify the jurisdictional authority and apply to surrender or cancel its GST registration.
pp. 4–5Disputed factual questions concerning turnover and tax quantification were considered unsuitable for determination in the exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226, with a statutory appeal identified as the appropriate remedy.
pp. 5–6No precedent was cited.
Provisions in the judgment · 1 · Linked ones open on LawLens
Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 Section 73
04Reasoning
The Court found that the respondent had uploaded the show-cause notice to the GST portal, issued three reminders, and attempted physical service by RPAD.
p. 4It held that the petitioner’s failure to respond or notify the authorities of the business closure did not justify an automatic remand.
pp. 4–6The petitioner’s claims that the assessment used consolidated turnover and would result in double taxation raised disputed factual matters, including the allocation of turnover among State registrations, which the Court declined to resolve under Article 226.
p. 5It therefore directed the petitioner to pursue the statutory appeal to challenge the assessment’s quantification.
p. 605Holding
The Court declined to quash or remand the assessment and dismissed the writ petition, leaving the petitioner to challenge the quantified assessment before the Appellate Authority.
p. 6It made no order as to costs, allowed W.M.P. No. 49852 of 2026, and closed the connected miscellaneous petition.
p. 6Original Court PDF
Ashok GeorgevsThe State Tax Officer,
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
