Allowed

Tvl Chellam Motors Private Limited v. The State Tax Officer - v (Roving Squad)

Madras HC21 Jan 2025WP(MD)/1482/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed a GST assessment order for 2020-21 because the Assessing Officer failed to make the mandatory determination of tax payable under Section 74 of the Tamil Nadu GST Act and ignored the Commissioner's Circular No.8/2024. The matter was remitted for fresh consideration following due procedure.

What did the court decide?

Impugned assessment order set aside; matter remitted to the first respondent for fresh consideration with a direction to provide a hearing and pass a reasoned order within eight weeks.

Tvl Chellam Motors Private Limited Vs The State Tax… — GST and Indirect Tax | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

W.P.(MD) No.1482 of 2025

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 21.01.2025

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU

¶6

W.P.(MD) No.1482 of 2025

¶7

and

¶8

W.M.P.(MD) Nos.1071 and 1072 of 2025

¶9

Tvl.Chellam Motors Private Limited, Rep., by its Accountant/Authorised Signatory, Mr.J.Thangabalu, No.9, Ibrahim Park Street, Trichy-620 008.

¶10

.. Petitioner

¶11

Vs.

¶12

1.The State Tax Officer-V (Roving Squad), Office of the Joint Commissioner (ST), Commercial Taxes Department, Intelligence Trichy Division, Trichy-620 008.

¶13

2.The Commercial Tax Officer, Office of the Joint Commissioner (ST), Commercial Taxes Department, Intelligence Trichy Division, Trichy-620 008.

¶14

.. Respondents

¶15

Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records of the impugned Order in GSTIN. 33AAGCC2404D2ZE/2020-21, dated

¶16

_________Page 1 of 5

¶17

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

¶18

W.P.(MD) No.1482 of 2025

¶19

30.09.2024, and the rejection order of rectification application in Reference No. GSTIN. 33AAGCC2404D2ZE/2020-21, dated 05.12.2024 passed by the 1st respondent and consequential impugned form GST DRC - 07 in Reference No.ZD33924197269S, dated 30.09.2024, and rejection order of rectification application in Reference No.ZD331224043984E, dated 05.12.2024, issued by the 2nd Respondent and quash the same as manifestly arbitrary, void, contrary to the provision of Section 168A of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India.

¶20

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Muthuvenkatraman

¶21

For Respondents : Mr.R.Suresh Kumar Additional Government Pleader

¶22

ORDER

¶23

The challenge in the writ petition is to the assessment order of the year 2020-21.

¶24

The Primordial contention of the learned counsel for the

¶25

petitioner is that neither the provisions of Section 74 of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”)

¶26

_________Page 2 of 5

¶27

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

¶28

W.P.(MD) No.1482 of 2025

¶29

which envisages a determination by the Assessing Officer of the proposal made under the show cause notice has been invoked, nor the circular issued by the Commissioner, State Tax, Commercial Taxes Department, Ezhilagam, Chennai, in Circular No.8/2024, dated 29.08.2024 has been followed by the Assessing Officer while issuing the order of demand.

¶30

A perusal of the order impugned herein would also show that the Assessing Officer had not made any determination of the tax payable by the petitioner as envisaged under Section 74 of the Act, nor has followed the guidelines issued in Circular dated 29.08.2024 of the Commissioner of State Tax. In such view of the matter, I am of the view that the order impugned suffers from vice of arbitrariness. For the said reason, the order impugned is liable to be interfered with.

¶31

In fine, this Writ Petition is allowed, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the first respondent for fresh consideration. The petitioner shall file his reply along with supporting documents within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a

¶32

_________Page 3 of 5

¶33

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

¶34

W.P.(MD) No.1482 of 2025

¶35

copy of this order and thereafter, the first respondent shall provide an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass a reasoned order on merits and in accordance with law within a period of eight weeks thereafter. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶36

21.01.2025

¶37

NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes abr

¶38

¶39

1.The State Tax Officer-V (Roving Squad), Office of the Joint Commissioner (ST), Commercial Taxes Department, Intelligence Trichy Division, Trichy-620 008.

¶40

2.The Commercial Tax Officer, Office of the Joint Commissioner (ST), Commercial Taxes Department, Intelligence Trichy Division, Trichy-620 008.

¶41

_________Page 4 of 5

¶42

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

¶43

W.P.(MD) No.1482 of 2025

¶44

K.KUMARESH BABU, J.

¶45

abr

¶46

W.P.(MD) No.1482 of 2025

¶47

Dated: 21.01.2025

¶48

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

¶49

_________Page 5 of 5

Tvl Chellam Motors Private Limited v. The State Tax Officer - v (Roving Squad)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tvl Chellam Motors Private Limited v. The State Tax Officer - v (Roving Squad)

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

M. Arasamani Vs The Joint Commissioner

Muniyappan. C Vs The Assistant Commissioner

V.Krishnaveni Vs The Joint Commissioner

A. Aysha Shibana Vs The Commissioner of Customs

Venkatachalam Vs The State Tax Officer

P.Sivakumar Vs The Joint Commissioner