Instakart Services Private Limited Vs the Additional Commissioner

¶1

W.P.No.31551 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

Dated : 22.08.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY

¶6

W.P.No.31551 of 2025 & W.M.P.Nos.35344 & 35345 of 2025

¶7

Instakart Services Private Limited Represented By Its Authorized Signatory Mr Ritesh Lunia, Having Office At Survey No 408 /3 And 407/1 Situated At Appanaickenpatty Village Earlier Palladum Taluk Now Sulur Taluk Kannampalayam, Coimbatore-641 402

¶8

... Petitioner

¶9

Vs.

¶10

The Additional Commissioner Chennai South Commissionerate, Office Of The Commissioner Of Gst And Central Excise, Mhu Complex, S.No.692, 5th Floor, Anna Salai, Nandanam, Chennai-600 035

¶11

... Respondents

¶12

Prayer:

¶13

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the

¶14

1/6

¶15

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

¶16

W.P.No.31551 of 2025

¶17

Impugned Order in Original No. 04/2025-GST ADC dated 06.01.2025 for the period July 2017 to March 2023 and consequential rectification order bearing DIN.20250459TL0000111F2A dated 30.04.2025 in the files of the First Respondent and to quash the same as arbitrary, without jurisdiction and void

¶18

For Petitioner : Mr.Kumar Vishalaksh

¶19

& Ms.Mallows Priscilla P.

¶20

For Respondent : Mr.Sai Srujan Tayi, SPC, & Ms.Pooja Jain JPC

¶21

ORDER

¶22

This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 06.01.2025 and the consequential rectification order dated

¶23

30.04.2025 passed by the 1 st respondent.

¶24

2. Mr.Sai Srujan Tayi, learned Senior Panel Counsel, takes notice

¶25

on behalf of the respondent. By consent of the parties, the main writ petition is taken up for disposal at the admission stage itself.

¶26

2/6

¶27

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

¶28

W.P.No.31551 of 2025

¶29

3. When this writ petition was taken up for hearing, the learned

¶30

counsel for the petitioner and the learned Senior Panel Counsel for the

¶31

respondent would submit that the issue involved in the present petition is with regard to the bunching of show cause notice/orders, i.e., issuance of

¶32

single show cause notice/orders for more than one financial year.

¶33

4. Further, they would submit that the aforesaid issue has already

¶34

been decided by this Court vide common order dated 21.07.2025 passed

¶35

in W.P.Nos.29716 of 2024, etc., batch, wherein it has been held as

¶36

follows:

¶37

“28. (i) The GST Act permits only for issuance of show cause notice based on the tax period. Therefore, if the annual return is filed, the entire year would be considered as a tax period and accordingly, the show cause notice shall be issued based on the said annual returns.

¶38

(ii) If show cause notice is issued before the filing of annual returns, the same can be issued based on the filing of monthly returns;

¶39

(iii) If show cause notice is issued after the filing of annual returns or after the commencement of

¶40

3/6

¶41

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

¶42

W.P.No.31551 of 2025

¶43

limitation, the said notice shall be issued based on the annual returns with regard to the relevant financial year.

¶44

(iv) No show cause notice can be clubbed and issued for more than one financial year since the same is impermissible in law.

¶45

(v) In these cases, without any jurisdiction, the impugned show cause notices/orders came to be issued/passed for more than one financial year, which is impermissible in law and hence, the same is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the impugned show cause notices/orders stand quashed based on the aspect of clubbing of show cause notices for more than one financial year.”

¶46

5. Therefore, considering the submissions made by the learned

¶47

counsel for the petitioner and by following the aforesaid order dated 21.07.2025 passed in W.P.Nos.29716 of 2024, etc., batch, this Court holds that in this case, without any jurisdiction, the impugned order came to be passed for more than one financial year, i.e., for the period from July 2017 to March 2023, which is impermissible in law and hence, the same is liable to be quashed.

¶48

4/6

¶49

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

¶50

W.P.No.31551 of 2025

¶51

6. Accordingly, this Court passes the following order:

¶52

(i) The impugned assessment order dated 06.01.2025 and the consequential rectification rejection order dated 30.04.2025 are quashed.

¶53

(ii) The respondent is granted liberty to initiate separate proceedings, against the petitioner, for each financial year.

¶54

7. With the above directions, this writ petition is disposed of. No

¶55

cost. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are also closed.

¶56

22.08.2025

¶57

Speaking/Non-speaking order Index : Yes / No Neutral Citation : Yes / No nsa

¶58

5/6

¶59

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

¶60

W.P.No.31551 of 2025

¶61

KRISHNAN RAMASAMY.J.,

¶62

nsa

¶63

To

¶64

The Additional Commissioner Chennai South Commissionerate, Office Of The Commissioner Of Gst And Central Excise, Mhu Complex, S.No.692, 5th Floor, Anna Salai, Nandanam, Chennai-600 035

¶65

W.P.No.31551 of 2025 & W.M.P.Nos.35344 & 35345 of 2025

¶66

22.08.2025

¶67

6/6

¶68

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

Instakart Services Private Limited v. the Additional Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Instakart Services Private Limited v. the Additional Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/s Nsv Labour Contractor Vs The Assistant commissioner (central Tax)

Power Builders Vs Superintendent Of Gst And Central Excise

M/S. Indian Additives Ltd. Vs the Assistant Commissioner (Ct)

Tvl. Are Pee PolymerREPRESENTED by Proprietor Thiru Arumugam Ravi Vs Assistant Commissioner (St)

Mercedes Benz Financial Services India Private Limited Vs the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (Cbic)

M/s. Jagdambe Impex Vs the Commercial Taxes Department