Quashed¶29

Chandra Reddy Electricals v. the Assisstant Commissioner (St)

Madras HC18 Sept 2025WP/23863/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: GST assessment order quashed; DRC-01 show cause notice; GSTR-7 mismatch at recipient's end; ISRO Propulsion Complex (IPRC) certificate dated 25.09.2024; Circular No.183; remand for fresh adjudication on merits within two months; Article 226 certiorarified mandamus; FY 2019-2020; Washermenpet Assessment Circle; Madras High Court; C. Saravanan, J.; writ petition disposed; no costs.

What did the court decide?

Impugned assessment order dated 30.08.2024 quashed; matter remitted to the respondent to pass a fresh order on merits within two months, taking note of the ISRO Propulsion Complex (IPRC) certificate dated 25.09.2024 and the petitioner's reply already on record; connected miscellaneous petitions closed; no order as to costs. ¶29

Chandra Reddy Electricals Vs the Assisstant… — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶29

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned assessment order dated 30.08.2024 for FY 2019-2020, confirming demand on the third defect (discrepancy between GSTR-7 at the recipient's end and the petitioner's monthly outward supplies), should be quashed and the respondent directed to pass a fresh order after considering the certificate issued by ISRO.

¶12

Court's answer

Since the petitioner had obtained the certificate dated 25.09.2024 to establish the purported discrepancy between the GSTR-7 of the recipient of service, ISRO Propulsion Complex (IPRC), the Court considered it appropriate to remit the matter back to the respondent to pass a fresh order taking note of the certificate, in the light of the petitioner's reply already on record.

¶28

Ratio / Principle

The respondent is directed to pass a fresh order on merits within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶28

Key takeaways

The impugned order is quashed and the writ petition is disposed of with the above directions; connected miscellaneous petitions are closed; there shall be no order as to costs.ratio¶29

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (C. Saravanan, J.), W.P. No. 23863 of 2025, decided 18.09.2025 - M/s. Chandra Reddy Electricals challenged, under Article 226, a GST assessment order dated 30.08.2024 (GSTIN:33ALMPK9299A1ZU/2019-2020, Reference ID ZD330824298396T, FY 2019-2020) passed by the Assistant Commissioner (ST), Washermenpet Assessment Circle, following a DRC-01 notice dated 30.05.2024 for April 2019 - March 2020. Of three defects flagged in the notice, demands were dropped on the first two; on the third (mismatch between GSTR-7 at the recipient's end and the petitioner's monthly outward supplies), the petitioner relied on replies dated 12.06.2024 and 25.06.2024 and subsequently secured a certificate from the recipient, ISRO Propulsion Complex (IPRC), dated 25.09.2024 in terms of Circular No.183. Holding that the certificate established the purported discrepancy, the Court quashed the impugned order and remitted the matter for a fresh order on merits within two months, taking note of the certificate and the petitioner's reply on record; connected miscellaneous petitions closed; no order as to costs.

¶1

W.P. No. 23863 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

Dated : 18.09.2025

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN

¶6

W.P. No. 23863 of 2025 and

¶7

W.M.P. Nos. 26867 & 26869 of 2025

¶8

M/s. Chandra Reddy Electricals, Rep., by its proprietor, Venkatarathnam Karlapudi

¶9

...Petitioner

¶10

Versus

¶11

The Assistant Commissioner (ST) Washermenpet Assessment Circle, Integraed Commercial Taxes Office Complex, Room No.206, No.1275/3, Bridge Road, Vepery, Chennai – 600 003. ...Respondent

¶12

Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus, to call for the entire records of impugned assessment order passed by the respondent herein in GSTIN:33ALMPK9299A1ZU/2019-2020 dated 30.08.2024 vide Reference ID:ZD330824298396T for the financial year 2019-2020, quash the same and consequently direct the respondent to pass an order after considering the certificate issued by ISRO vide No.IPRC/ACCTS/CMG/2024-25 dated 25.09.2025.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr. K.B. Hariharan

¶14

1/4

¶15

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

¶16

W.P. No. 23863 of 2025

¶17

For Respondent : Mr. V. Prashanth Kiran, Government Advocate

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

The Petitioner is before this Court against the impugned order dated 30.08.2024. The impugned order was preceded by a notice in DRC-01 dated

¶20

30.05.2024 for the tax period between April 2019 – March 2020.

¶21

The Petitioner has replied to the same and was heard before the impugned order was passed. Facts on record reveal that three defects were pointed out in the aforesaid show cause notice. In respect of the first and second defect, demands have been dropped. Insofar as the third defect i.e., discrepancy between the information in GSTR-7 at the recipients end and the petitioner's GST advance (monthly outward supply), the Petitioner was required to submit the required certificate to substantiate the position.

¶22

According to the Petitioner, the Petitioner has indeed given the particulars in the reply dated 12.06.2024 and 25.06.2024. However, without considering the same, the Respondent has confirmed the demand against the Petitioner. It is further submitted that the post facto Petitioner has also

¶23

2/4

¶24

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

¶25

W.P. No. 23863 of 2025

¶26

secured a certificate from the recipient, namely, ISRO Propulsion Complex (IPRC) dated 25.09.2024 in terms of Circular No.183.

¶27

Be that as it may. Since the Petitioner has obtained the certificate dated 25.09.2024 to establish the purported discrepancy between the GSTR-

¶28

7 of the recipient of service namely ISRO Propulsion Complex (IPRC) post facto, I am of the view that the matter can be remitted back to the Respondent to pass a fresh order taking note of the above, in the light of Petitioner's reply already on record. The Respondent is directed to pass a fresh order on merits within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶29

Accordingly, the impugned order is quashed and this Writ Petition is disposed of with the above directions. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶30

18.09.2025

¶31

Index : Yes/No Neutral Citation :Yes/No AT

¶32

3/4

¶33

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

¶34

W.P. No. 23863 of 2025

¶35

C.SARAVANAN, J.

¶36

¶37

To The Assistant Commissioner (ST) Washermenpet Assessment Circle, Integraed Commercial Taxes Office Complex, Room No.206, No.1275/3, Bridge Road, Vepery, Chennai – 600 003.

¶38

W.P. No. 23863 of 2025 and W.M.P. Nos. 26867 & 26869 of 2025

¶39

18.09.2025

¶40

4/4

¶41

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

Chandra Reddy Electricals v. the Assisstant Commissioner (St)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandra Reddy Electricals v. the Assisstant Commissioner (St)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Reckitt Benckiser (India) Private Limited Vs State of Tamilnadu

Subir Ghosh Vs the Deputy Commissioner (St) (Fac)

M/S Chandra Traders Vs Assistant Commissioner (St)

Tvl Thanishka Traders Vs The Assistant Commissioner (Ct)( Fac)

Guru Granites Vs Deputy Commercial Tax Officer (St)

Jens Bothe Vs True Value Homes (India) Pvt. Ltd.