| |
CDJ 2026 MHC 546
|
| Court : High Court of Judicature at Madras |
| Case No : W.P. No. 1079 of 2026 & W.M.P. Nos. 1255 & 1256 of 2026 |
| Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C. SARAVANAN |
| Parties : M/s. Visanthi & Co, Rep. by its Proprietor, Nanjagoundenpalayam Rathnam Sami, Coimbatore Versus The Assistant Commissioner (ST), Thudiyalur Circle, Coimbatore & Another |
| Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioner: G.R. Deepak, Advocate. For the Respondents: V. Prashanth Kiran, Government Advocate. |
| Date of Judgment : 20-01-2026 |
| Head Note :- |
Constitution of India - Article 226 -
|
| Summary :- |
1. Statutes / Acts / Rules Mentioned:
- Article 226 of the Constitution of India
- Section 73
- TNGST Act
- Form GST DRC-07
- Form DRC-13
- Form DRC-01
2. Catch Words:
- Writ of Certiorari
- Mandamus
- Attachment notice
- Overlap of demand
- Assessment order
- Demand, interest, penalty
- Remand / remitted back
3. Summary:
The petitioner challenged the GST department’s order dated 07.02.2025 (Form GST DRC‑07) which confirmed a tax demand of Rs. 23,62,926 for FY 2020‑21, alleging overlap with an earlier assessment order dated 24.07.2024. The petitioner highlighted that a substantial portion of the demand had already been recovered, leaving a balance liability. The respondent admitted the overlap arising from mismatches between GSTR‑1 and GSTR‑3B and suggested remitting the matter for fresh consideration. The Court observed the overlap, directed the department to redo the assessment within three months, and allowed the petitioner to file a detailed reply to the Show‑Cause Notice. The writ petition was disposed of without costs, and related W.M.Ps were closed.
4. Conclusion:
Petition Dismissed |
| Judgment :- |
|
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records on the files of the 1st Respondent herein in GSTIN:33AXCPS7331M1z6/2020-21 dated 07.02.2025 and order under Section 73 dated 07.02.2025 and the summary of the order in Form GST DRC-07 dated 07.02.2025 both issued in Reference No:ZD330225076542K and quash the same and consequentially removing the attachment notice issued in Form DRC 13 under TNGST Act dated 11.11.2025.)
1. The petitioner is before this Court against the impugned order dated 07.02.2025 passed in DRC-07 for the tax period 2020-2021 pursuant to the rejection of the petitioner’s application filedo n 03.06.2025 or rectification of the impuged order which came to be rejected by the respondent vide order dated 18.09.2025.
2. The specific case of the petitioner is that the petitioner has already suffered an assessment order earlier on 24.07.2024 for the tax period 2020-2021 wherein a substantial portion of the demand raised in the impugned order was already covered.
3. It is noticed that the tax liability of the petitioner confirmed by the impugned order dated 07.02.2025 is Rs.11,75,578/- and together with interest and penalty, the total demand has been worked out to Rs.23,62,926/- for the aforesaid tax period.
4. Insofar as the demand confirmed earlier vide assessment order dated 24.07.2024 is concerned, the tax demand was worked out Rs.12,48,818/- together with interest and the said demand overlaps with the demand confirmed by the impugned order.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as against the demand confirmed vide order dated 24.07.2024, the department has recovered a substantial portion of the amount, leaving a balance of Rs.4,29,232/- out of the total demand of Rs.21,07,282/-.
6. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner as against the demand confirmed vide impugned order dated 07.02.2025 for a total sum of Rs.23,62,926/- inclusive of interest, penalty and fee, the department has already recovered a sum of Rs.11,81,465/- from the petitioner.
7. The learned counsel for the respondent fairly submits that there is an overlap insofar as the tax demand confirmed on account of mismatch in details between GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B is concerned and that the matter shall be remitted back.
8. In the impugned order, the amount involved on account of such mismatch is substantial and works out to Rs.10,49,812/- (Rs.5,24,906 × 2). Considering the fact that there is an overlap in the demand confirmed vide impugned order dated 07.02.2025 and order dated 24.07.2024, the case is remitted back to the first respondent to redo the exercise and pass a fresh order on merits, as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
9. It is open to the petitioner to file a detailed reply to the Show Cause Notice in Form DRC-01 dated 25.11.2024, treating the impugned order dated 07.02.2025 as an addendum, and to satisfy the department that there is an overlap in the demand.
10. The writ petition is disposed of with the above observations. No costs. Consequently, connected W.M.Ps are closed.
|
| |
