Allowed

M/s. a K Constructions v. The Assistant Commissioner (St)

Madras HC24 Apr 2025WP(MD)/11479/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

GST assessment order for AY 2019-20 challenged as passed without notice, drastically enhancing tax liability without Section 161 TNGST rectification procedure. Court remanded to assessing authority for fresh orders after hearing, within four months; writ allowed.

What did the court decide?

Matter remanded to respondent to pass fresh order after hearing petitioner within four months; no costs.

M/s. a K Constructions Vs The Assistant Commissioner (St) — GST and Indirect Tax | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

W.P.(MD)No.11479 of 2025

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 24.04.2025

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIVEK KUMAR SINGH

¶6

W.P.(MD)No.11479 of 2025 and W.M.P.(MD)No.8506 of 2025

¶7

M/s.A.K.Constructions Rep. by its Proprietor K.Kaleeswaran Pandi

¶8

... Petitioner

¶9

-vs-

¶10

The Assistant Commissioner (ST), Sivakasi I Assessment Circle, Commercial Tax Buildings, NGO Colony, Satchiyapuram, Sivakasi - 626 124.

¶11

... Respondent

¶12

PRAYER:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records on the file of the respondent in GSTIN - 33EJWPK8529M1Z8/2019-20 (Reference No. ZD330323031746N) dated 07.03.2023 for the assessment year 2019-20 and to quash the same as illegal, arbitrary, wholly without jurisdiction, and direct the respondent to pass order afresh after affording an sufficient opportunity.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.N.Sudalai Muthu

¶14

_____________ Page 1 of 6_

¶15

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

¶16

W.P.(MD)No.11479 of 2025

¶17

For Respondent : Mr.J.K.Jayaselan Government Advocate

¶18

ORDER

¶19

This writ petition has been filed challenging the assessment

¶20

order of the respondent, dated 07.03.2023, for the Assessment Year 2019-2020.

¶21

With the consent of both sides, this Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.

¶22

The learned counsel further submits that the respondent initially passed the impugned order dated 21.02.2023, levying a tax of Rs.1,97,135/along with interest and penalty. However, without issuing any notice to the petitioner, the respondent subsequently passed another order dated 07.03.2023, determining a tax liability of Rs.49,43,452/- along with interest and penalty. Thereafter, the respondent issued additional assessment orders dated 16.08.2024, 23.08.2024, and 28.08.2024, all based on the same set of facts for the assessment year 2019–2020. The learned counsel further submits

¶23

Page 2 of 6

¶24

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

¶25

W.P.(MD)No.11479 of 2025

¶26

that the respondent, without invoking the procedure contemplated under Section 161 of the TNGST Act, 2017 for rectification of errors, has passed a subsequent order dated 07.03.2023, drastically enhancing the tax liability without notice to the petitioner, which is in violation of the principles of natural justice.

¶27

The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent fairly submitted that the matter may be remanded to the respondent for reconsideration and that the respondent shall pass a fresh order within a specified time frame.

¶28

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record.

¶29

This Court, after considering the submissions of both parties, remands the matter back to the respondent for fresh consideration. The respondent is directed to review the petitioner's case, taking into account the contention that the earlier assessment orders were passed without affording

¶30

_____________ Page 3 of 6_

¶31

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

¶32

W.P.(MD)No.11479 of 2025

¶33

sufficient opportunity of hearing. The respondent shall also consider the petitioner’s grievance that the subsequent order dated 07.03.2023, which substantially enhanced the tax liability, was passed without notice or in compliance with the procedure contemplated under Section 161 of the TNGST Act, 2017 and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law, after giving due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶34

Accordingly, this Writ Petition stands allowed. There shall be no

¶35

order as to costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶36

NCC : Yes / No 24.04.2025 Index : Yes / No 1/4 PKN

¶37

_____________ Page 4 of 6_

¶38

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

¶39

W.P.(MD)No.11479 of 2025

¶40

To:-

¶41

The Assistant Commissioner (ST), Sivakasi I Assessment Circle, Commercial Tax Buildings, NGO Colony, Satchiyapuram, Sivakasi - 626 124.

¶42

_____________ Page 5 of 6_

¶43

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

¶44

W.P.(MD)No.11479 of 2025

¶45

VIVEK KUMAR SINGH, J.

¶46

PKN

¶47

W.P.(MD)No.11479 of 2025

¶48

24.04.2025

¶49

1/4

¶50

_____________ Page 6 of 6_

¶51

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

M/s. a K Constructions v. The Assistant Commissioner (St)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s. a K Constructions v. The Assistant Commissioner (St)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

A.Rajkumar Vs The Regional Passport Officer

R.M. Valliyammal Vs The Project Manager

Tvl. Ameen Lineman, Vs The Assistant Commissioner (St) (Fac)

Tvl a Sikkander Badhusha Vs State Tax Officer

Nithya Vs The Secretary

Mayakrishnan Ganapathy Vs The Regional Passport Officer